Labels Find New Method of Payola 605
rhadamanthus writes "The Houston Chronicle is reporting on the newest 'legal' payola tactic put forth by the record industry: playing the song as an advertisement. It seems that while it is illegal to pay a radio station to play a song, it is not illegal to play a song as an ad. Quoth the article, 'The practice is legal as long as the station makes an on-air disclosure of the label's sponsorship -- typically with an introduction such as "And now, Avril Lavigne's Don't Tell Me, presented by Arista Records."' Incidentally, that song was played 109 times in one week by Nashville station WQZQ-FM."
Record labels are still up to their old tricks (Score:4, Insightful)
This seems to be just one more underhanded tactic being utilized by the record labels these days.
a few hundred spins here and there can move a song up a place or two in the rankings -- and ensure that it is climbing rather than falling on the charts.
When it comes down to it, the labels are still effectively following the old outlawed practice of "paying for play", trying to hide behind a technicality in current US law. Though, that's something they seem to be doing a lot of these days.
Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks (Score:3, Informative)
Roger Waters (bassist, main song writer) has an anti-music establishment issue (despite being one of the biggest acts in rock history and making a bazillion dollars out of it)
Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks (Score:5, Insightful)
Do artists have a viable choice?
Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope. That's what oligopoly means. You can choose any label you want to as long as it's an RIAA label.
Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks (Score:3, Insightful)
And I know I've said this a million times, but the RIAA does not own any labels. They are a trade group, not a record company. Big difference between the two.
Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, I've listened to a lot of bands that have performed locally and then made their way up from there. Nothing says you have to get that recording contract immediately...play for awhile on the local circuit, probably holding down other jobs as well. Just because some people make it big/rich quick doesn't mean it's owed to you. Whatever happened to good, hard, honest work?
On the flip side, a great many bands do this. Most of the bands I listen to I got into because of their live shows (Andrew W.K., O.A.R.). These bands sold me on their music without even talking to a record label.
--trb
Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks (Score:5, Interesting)
If lables control the airwaves, how do you get the word out that you have a great band? Many(most?)people who love music only rarely get out to hear it live. Their primary source of info about new sounds is the radio. If the major lables are paying to have the airwaves play their artists tunes, how do the little guys with no money get heard?
In theory, radio airplay is about the songs that people want to hear. According to this article, and a well-known history of corupt payola, its really about what the record lables want you to hear. If you could fix that, you'd be a lot closer to me buying into the argument that the little band has a choice about signing with a lable.
TW
Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure the RIAA may control the airwaves, but (for the moment), they don't control the Internet. If a band wanted to get noticed nationaly all they would have to do is set up a web site, Bit Torrent there album, and let word of mouth do the rest, by spreading around flyers with the bands web site at every gig/concert.
The band would continue on locally, earning money from gigs/concerts, and as word spread around the Internet, more and more people would show up at gigs, and concer
Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks (Score:3, Interesting)
The reason the major lables control the airwaves now is because of the limited supply of radio stations. The internet promises to one day fix that but right now it can only compete on an unlevel playing field.
TW
Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks (Score:4, Insightful)
This is precisely what the RIAA is trying to prevent...by vilifying P2P and their attempts to have it banned. All this talk about piracy and kiddie porn is just a "wag the dog" thing. They're trying to outlaw self distribution.
Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks (Score:4, Insightful)
First off, there are successful bands who never got airtime on MTV. There are very few of them, however, and most of them are still under big labels, like Phish.
Secondly, enough distribution and advertising to become a hot item without the major labels in our current culture is near impossible due to several things:
1) So-called Independants which are basically the new payola. You can't get on the radio because it's all owned by Clear Channel, hence why you hear the same 15 songs being played on every radio station. Even classic rock has sold out so you only hear like 5 bands on classic rock stations nowadays. Zeppelin, Aerosmith, AC/DC and two others.
2) An absolute stranglehold on the lawmaking institution due to heavy political lobbying.
3) Media conglomeration. You can't be on MTV or VH1 (owned by the same HUGE conglomerate) without a major label behind you. You can't get nominated for a Grammy without one. You can have a great music video and they still wouldn't distribute it.
You also can't get on the cover of Rolling Stone or any major magazine, or even be a blurb in there, without someone covering you. Rolling Stone is NOT an independant media company. See media conglomerate. And they won't cover you unless you're up and coming AND on a major label.
4) Internet media conglomeration. Let's face it, you could search around on the internet but you won't find any concensus about up and coming bands except on those websites which are already owned by big media.
Face it, music industries have a verticle stranglehold on distribution because they own all forms of media and communication. Media conglomeration is a HUGE issue right now but one no one will talk about, and with politicians in their pockets it's useless. Notice how much the media wants you to believe there are only two possible parties, when there should be many more than that in this country. It's bread and circuses for the masses, let's face it. You can like indie bands but don't expect them to be popular without selling out to the man, which they'll be happy to do as most full-time bands can barely afford rent.
Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks (Score:3, Insightful)
That's great. I love live local music. However, in many places across the country, there are two major requirements for this kind of access:
16-20 year olds in suburbia are a major market for music. Due to forces outside of their control, the major music exposure
Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks (Score:5, Funny)
It got outsourced.
A Viable Choice? (Score:4, Interesting)
Do artists have a viable choice?
Perhaps, see here [discipline...mobile.com] for Robert Fripp's solution.
SteveM
Of Course (Score:4, Interesting)
+$2,000
+$0,950
+$0,500
-------
$3,450
This is, of course, assuming you already have instruments and a couple of mics. My guess is that most of the bands who have no viable option also have no viable talent without PR and good photography.
Re:Of Course (Score:5, Insightful)
A distributor isnt' about recording, it's about promoting and "distibuting".
Success isn't a right. (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't deserve anything because you're in a band, even if your sound is earth-shatteringly brilliant. Work for it or stop playing gigs. Pretty damn simple.
Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean exactly what most of them get after signing with a label?
Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks (Score:4, Insightful)
Make sure you don't confuse producers with artists. A lot of acts, particularly pop music where there is just a single singer and no 'band' per-se, is written by a producer or a song writer employed by a major label (often being told "we need a nice fun summer hit song"). The producers then decide who they should get from their talent pool to sing it (ie: who will make it a hit, who hasn't released something in a while, who looks best in the video - which likely is already written - for this song).
These sorts of artists are basically scouted by the industry, and turned into stars. How is someone off the street, who would normally never make it anywhere, going to turn down an offer to become a big star and make a crapload more money than they're making now at mcdonalds?
Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks (Score:4, Interesting)
The whole "pop stars" reality TV phenominon made it even more transparent, and people still don't care. At least the corporate shill bands of the '90s were involved in the writing process (even if half of the harmonizing and mixing was done by producers).
All I ask is that the songs be associated with the person who made the music, not some ditzy little flake who teens want to fuck.
Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks (Score:4, Interesting)
Why not cut out the middleman? (Score:5, Interesting)
Come to think of it, why not buy (or create) record stores too?
How about venues for concerts?
Are there some sort of laws against record labels owning radio stations/record stores/performance venues?
I mean, c'mon, if you're going to tell people what to like and then charge them to get it, do it right.
Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks (Score:5, Insightful)
For all you do... (Score:3, Funny)
Legalize Payola! (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd rather the corruption be out in the open than live under the false belief that, gasp, good music might be favored by DJs.
Finally, it'd put an end to all the pollyannish stories lamenting that the purity of Big Corporate Music has been betrayed.
Come on people (Score:3, Insightful)
You people can't even get your villains straight.
Here is a press release from Hilary Rosen hersel
I don't get what's wrong with it! (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, just what is so wrong with "payola," anyway? How is it different from any other form of advertising? If a radio station got no money from any source other than payola, at least then all the ads you'd hear on that station would be for products you've already proven yourself to be a member of the market for (i.e. music).
It seems to me that, once upon a time, the Billboard charts had some sort of meaning or value and it was important to know exactly which single was where on the charts, and it was really bad if a record label "rigged the game" with some kind of payola scheme. But these days, who gives a shit? We know music is a business... why isn't it allowed to advertise?
(And I'm saying this even though I'm one of the (apparent) Slashdot majority that wouldn't listen to most of the crap on the radio if they paid me.)
Yay, feed the sheep! (Score:5, Insightful)
To be sure, Don't Tell Me is a bona fide hit, even without spins being bought and paid for. Radio stations must play a song many thousands of times for it to crack the Billboard top 10. Nonetheless, a few hundred spins here and there can move a song up a place or two in the rankings -- and ensure that it is climbing rather than falling on the charts.
Hmm. The only thing I am sure about is that the music industry is making the sheep believe that a song is a hit at the expense of their own customers.
"In our business, perception is reality," he said. "The minute you're down in spins, these program directors drop the record."
If it is played 40 times a week people are going to hear it and *believe* that it is popular. When it gets artificially vaulted to the top of the charts more people are going to *believe* that it is popular.
Now. Where did the money come from for them to pay the radio stations to "advertise" the song? Music buyers. That's right. The wonderful conglomerates are at it again. Telling the sheep what to think is good and paying to make sure they hear it and keep buying it. Do you really want to keep supporting conglomerates that use shady tactics and your money to make some songs more popular than others?
No? Then support [sharingthegroove.com] freedom [furthurnet.com] of music and stop the roundabout tactics, money wasting, and bullshit.
Re:Yay, feed the sheep! (Score:4, Interesting)
when they use money to make hits.. I fail to see why I should give them money for that.
ba ba baaaaaaa.
Re:Yay, feed the sheep! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yay, feed the sheep! (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, the sheep have to be willing to be led. People who purchase music solely because it is popular deserve what they get.
Does anyone still listen to radio? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Does anyone still listen to radio? (Score:5, Interesting)
NPR is part of the problem. (Score:3, Insightful)
> radio stations such as NPR are still great sources for news
NPR lobbied against [npr.org] Low Power FM radio stations [slashdot.org]. This limits competition and supports the status quo of radio consolidation [pbs.org] (Their brother PBS network acknowledges radio consolidation as a problem, how ironic!). Just something to remember when they start one of their pledge drives.
Re:Does anyone still listen to radio? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Does anyone still listen to radio? (Score:5, Interesting)
The restaurant has a policy of having it only on an available "pop" station. When I work an 8 hour day shift I'll hear the same "song" 3 times sometimes. To be naive: this is a radio station that apparently doesn't even have enough music to fill up an 8 hour spot, so they have to repeat songs. I've got enough casettes just in my car to fill up a four day spot, and I'm not a radio station. And I'd guarantee I'd actually play something that, at least, resembled music.
Re:Does anyone still listen to radio? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Does anyone still listen to radio? (Score:5, Interesting)
I do agree with your sentiments to some extent that before I discovered indie/nonprofit radio stations such as my own and a few under the Pacifica banner, I hated all radio and preferred the noise of my car engine to anything they were playing over the airwaves.
But once you've started listening to public radio, my friends, you'll never look back.
Why I switched to Sirius almost two years ago! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Why I switched to Sirius almost two years ago! (Score:5, Funny)
They do, don't they? (Score:3, Funny)
That's kind of like listening to a golf game on the radio.
Re:Does anyone still listen to radio? (Score:5, Funny)
Well excuse me, Captain Pompousolous. No, of course none of the uber Slashdot readers would ever actually listen to RADIO.
If you're not streaming indie og's on your 802.11g network to your home-built audio appliance, well, you're just a SHEEP. baaa baa baa
As a matter of fact, I feel so strongly about this, I'm going to refuse to actually get a life, and instead will spend all day in my mom's basement. That will show those record companies.
Re:Does anyone still listen to radio? (Score:3, Informative)
Why is this a problem (Score:3, Interesting)
I understand why traditional payola is verbotten, but this seems like a legitimate ad placement. Indeed, given how inexpensive radio advertising is at the local level (outside of drive time) I'm surprised small local bands haven't already grabbed onto this idea.
I know the RIAA and such is evil, but come on... as my grandfather used to say, even a broken watch is right twice a day.
Re:Why is this a problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why is this a problem (Score:4, Insightful)
I will venture to guess that b/c most people do not know it's an ad (or don't care) that they will not only accept the money for this and run the ad but they will also run their standard ads as well.
Re:Why is this a problem (Score:4, Interesting)
It's one thing to pay for advertising so that people will hear a new song, it's another thing altogether if those "ads" can influence the numbers in the Billboard charts.
Re:Why is this a problem (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why is this a problem (Score:5, Interesting)
Heck... you can even get ads played on major cable networks-- CNN, Spike, etc. during off hours for prices in the $5 range...
Here's an article about it. [small-biz-advisor.com]
Music Infomercial (Score:5, Interesting)
How is this any different? Except they have to pay for a lot of time (2-3 minutes) of ad time.
Not new (Score:3, Interesting)
Obligatory UHF quote (Score:5, Interesting)
- R.J. Fletcher, "UHF"
Wouldn't you think... (Score:4, Interesting)
usually a song sells itself to people and any good song shouldn't have to pay to be played.. if the listeners want to hear it, they will play it but they would be playing it for the wrong reasons if paid.
The law is weird. (Score:3, Interesting)
It seems kind of strange that the law should require any of this. If you want to charge for airtime on your radio station, you should be able to. And if nobody wants to pay you, then tough Schitt.
Re:The law is weird. (Score:3, Insightful)
So i want a voice-over every 20 seconds saying, "This is a paid advertisement for Sh*tty Music of the Day"
hey, that way people won't Pirate(tm) the song off the radio.
Re:The law is weird. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well there's the problem of the airwaves belonging to the public. I think if a radio station wants to accept payola they don't deserve a government enforced monopoly over a part of the airwaves.
Personally I'd like to see less FCC and some more democratic process where crap stations can be voted off the air and their radio license give to some more promising competitor.
If it was internet radio I wouldn't care because there isn't quite the scarcity of that medium.
That's got to be expensive! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:That's got to be expensive! (Score:3, Funny)
6 * a few hundred dollars?
How is this any different than P2P? (Score:5, Interesting)
So what's the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
And this is bad how? (Score:4, Insightful)
Hopefully this trend will continue, leaving the stations free to play a more interesting variety, if the mass-market crap they're playing now migrates to paid ads. Why play it for free when the labels are willing to pay for it?
Re:And this is bad how? (Score:4, Insightful)
Far more likely they'd just gravitate to an entirely pay-for-play model. Especially when the people paying the station's bills (the purveyors of the aforementioned mass-market crap) start to complain about the free airtime the station is giving to their competitors.
Why is this bad? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why is this bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
In return, the radio stations are expected to play what you want to hear, with a certain (regulated) amount of time allowed for playing advertisements to support the process. If they were playing the music for pay, that would be increasing the advertising time, time that they're supposed to be spending on playing stuff in the public's interest for free.
That is the theory. Practice, of course, is somewhat different. It is certainly convenient that the FCC regulates the bandwidth; otherwise, loud and greedy broadcasters would take up every frequency, including the ones you use for Bluetooth, garage door openers, and wi-fi.
But vast swaths of spectrum are sold well below market price because you're not allowed to bid on it. They do limit how much of the spectrum can be owned by any one company, but it turns out to be surprisingly much.
Re:Why is this bad? (Score:3, Insightful)
Whoa! You're mixing an awful lot of stuff in the same pot here.
First, according to current policy at the FCC, the airwaves are NOT a public trust. They're more like real-estate zoned for business.
Second, the FCC zones various bands and assigns licenses so that listeners can know where to "go" to he
is your favorite band actually the band? (Score:4, Insightful)
Independent music seems to have a certain stigma attached to it still, kinda like the generic brand at the grocery. But check some indie stuff out, it's music by people for people.
So can I offer it up for download to 1 million... (Score:4, Funny)
Billboard Criteria (Score:3, Interesting)
So, I'm still wondering: if the "song" is really an "advertisement" for the purposes of regulation, why does it count towards a billboard rating?
And if adds do count, why isn't Moby the top rated artist of all time (by virtue of his popularity on Madison Ave.)?
Re:OK, so let's get Billboard's attention (Score:3, Insightful)
You're funny!
-
Shooting yourself in the foot (Score:4, Interesting)
Now I can't remember when it was the last time I did that. Even in my car, I only listen to the AM news stations, and even that mostly for the traffic reports (living in Toronto it's suicide not to, you can get stuck for hours on the 401 if you're not aware of accidents). With the consolidation under ClearChannel and Standard Radio, sometimes I can't even tell the difference between stations, they're ALL playing the same music more or less.
Now that the RIAA, and probably the CRIA (the RIAA's Canadian offspring) soon, are paying to have the same song played constantly, they have pretty much guaranteed I will never listen to music on the radio again.
Sorry for the rant, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way.
New world of music... (Score:4, Interesting)
While there are very few of us that don't prefer radio today, there are those that are perfectly happy listening to the same song over and over again regardless of how good it is.
I think that's one of the key items. The norm is now 'created' by those with the money to influence it. If it's playing on the radio 90 percent of the time, it must be popular. Right? There's almost nothing in the way of choice of genre, but then again, I suppose there never was. Aren't we supposed to be moving forward?
These are just my views anyway...
One thing that holds true is that playing the same song over and over again, regardless of how good it is, destroys it -- and it's seems to be common practice.
Personally, I think that very little music today shows anything in the way of innovation or talent. There are a handful of artists that I enjoy listening too, but I'm happy to be able to put whatever I want into my CD player and listen to it. When my fiance tells me that she wants to listen to the radio instead, I CRINGE.
In the end, it's up to the sheep and we're all subjected to what they'll follow, so buckle up:)
I'm not sharing a music file... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not sharing a music file... I'm sharing a commercial !
Okay, Googled it, can't find the law, but I did find several [fortunecity.com] interesting [usatvads.com] sites [about.com] with commercials [visa.com.hk] !
Anyone know the relevant laws ??? (Yeah, IANAFL).
seems to me that we've got it all wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
Then the labels would then have an incentive for more people to download and listen to a specific "official" version of a song so that their rating points would go higher. This would likely put the appropriate down-pressure on the price of that "official" tagged version of a song (maybe even inspire "free-download" days)...
Note that this is all slightly tongue-in-cheek since the privacy experts will likely frown on this and probably the only reason for stunts like this (and other like prince giving away free cds at concerts) is that someone, somewhere has a weird performance bonus clause written a contract that makes this profitable for them, but of course probably less money from the person on the other side of the contract.
The record business is a pretty low-down business with all sorts of wacky contracts people use to screw each other out of the every shrinking money pie. I doubt it is possible to extrapolate the next wierd behavior before the contract people catch up to it...
does that then mean that ... (Score:3, Funny)
"Avril Lavigne's Don't Tell Me, presented by Arista Records.mp3"
and I instantly have a legal mp3??
I LOVE THIS SONG - a paraphrase (Score:3, Funny)
You take me out and pay for it
I tell you things you're gonna get
When it comes time to screw
I say not with you!
I can lie take your money and cheat
But don't treat me like a piece of meat!
Don't tell me what to do!
I'm going to go have sex with your abusive friend in a week or two.
Free Advertising? (Score:3, Funny)
nick
This is bad because why ? (Score:5, Insightful)
According to prevailing
Freedom means freedom. It doesn't mean freedom only when it suits your own anti-corporate agenda. Yes, for my taste, clearchannel stations play a too small selection, much of which is overpromoted crap. However, I am not prepared to abandon my principles in opposition to that crap. Stations should be free to make programming decisions based purely on profit motive and I should be free to turn the dial if I don't like it. That's how freedom works folks. People deciding things for themselves. Freedom is not a government regulator dictating how music programming should be decided.
Re:This is bad because why ? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This is bad because why ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is bad because why ? (Score:3, Insightful)
No one cares what you broadcast on your home stereo(well, maybe the RIAA), but when you use our airwaves, you play by our rules.
Why is it... (Score:5, Interesting)
Why is it that the RIAA will pay a radio station $60,000 to play their songs, and then turn around and sue a 12 year old girl for effectively "rebroadcasting" their advertisement?
So, fans get sued by the RIAA for downloading the same music the RIAA paid a radio station to broadcast. How can one be piracy, but not the other? After all, why would I buy the CD if the radio plays it all the time? Doesn't it occur to the RIAA that music fans have no need to buy the CD if the radio station is always playing a particular artist's music?
I'm kind of curious as if there are any slashdotters brave enough to distribute mp3's of these "commercials" (in their entirety, of course...) and then send the RIAA and invoice for every file downloaded...
Re:Why is it... (Score:5, Interesting)
Ah, you're going down the rabbit hole now. The major labels do this so that acts that they don't own don't get airplay. This is serious, calculated stuff going on. The labels keep just a broad enough variety of artists so that they're covered in all the main markets and demographics and then restrict what's played to only include their material. By limiting what is played on the air their consumers aren't even aware of non-major artists.
Quoth Anthony Pratkanis:
"You cannot control what people think. You can, however, control what they think about."
Two things not to forget... (Score:3, Insightful)
(2) Radio stations can still be selective about what they're going to play.
Learn to sing (Score:4, Insightful)
I get a lot more enjoyment out of listening to my friends sing (and singing with them) old songs, sad songs, happy songs, silly song, whatever, than out of my music CDs.
Its live, its free, its even good sometimes.
So drink a few beers, gather round a camp fire, close your eyes and sing. Or play a guitar, learn to drum, pick up a kazoo, banjo, or tamborine, or even how to clap in time.
We have become a world that doesn't know how to entertain ourselves. If it isn't shiny, plastic, flashing, miniature, or if our neighbors (you know, those people on TV) don't have it then we don't want it.
brainwashing? (Score:3)
But I guess I actually *listen* to the radio when it is on and I take control of the thing when it annoys me. I also pay attention to other aspects of my environment, like who is walking behind me and strange sounds outside. It's an instinct for self preservation, a hold over from ancient times. Protects me from surprise, and I guess from being brainwashed as well, cuz none of my clothes have designer logos on them.
Peoples' instincts must be dulled to nothing. Their minds idling over like mill wheels, round and round grinding the same grist all day. Why does anyone put up with being treated like a mass of thoughtless pulp by hungry, tentacled corporations who want your money, and hence your labor?
Is this a hazard that comes with soft living? Or maybe 15,000 years of evolution without meaningful predators coming after you all the time? Or did TV and consumerism really, finally, destroy our minds?
Payola ?!?! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I might care (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Why is Payola BAD(tm)????? (Score:3, Insightful)