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."
What I want to know (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What I want to know (Score:5, Insightful)
Sunday morning around 2am-ish
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, some people are still out then (that's not "Sunday morning;" that's still just late "Saturday night!"). Make it 5:30-6 AM Sunday morning, and you've got it about right.
Re: (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
Re:What I want to know (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What I want to know (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
CBC radio 3 [radio3.cbc.ca] and the french canadian station with its own podcast (today its all arcade fire!) BAP.fm [bandeapart.fm]
Re: (Score:2)
phony compliance? (Score:2)
Very cool... (Score:4, Funny)
At the very least, it'll be fascinating to hear how the broadcasters will transition to the 'punishment' broadcasts...
"This is wacky bob and the fizz signing off - up next, it's a half-hour of something we don't want you to hear, and we don't get paid for. So, um, enjoy!"
Ryan Fenton
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.
Re: (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
Re:Very cool... (Score:5, Funny)
That's funny. I didn't realize that the broadcasters were in the business of promoting bands. I thought they made their money selling advertising, and therefore tried to find good music to keep listeners. So does that mean record companies are paying broadcasters to promote these bands?
By the way, what's payola?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Obligatory... (Score:2)
Dr. Evil: Really? Okay then... we hold the world ransom for 1... hundred... BILLION dollars!
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, you leave out the alternative, what goes on today: "This is wacky bob and the fizz signing off - up next, it's a half-hour of the same goddamn song over and over and over again."
As I understand as part of one of their settlements the RIAA had to provide a certain value worth of music to public institutions like libraries, so they took the settlement as an opportunity to unload and write off a lot of junk they had in warehouses. One library reported receiving twelve copies of Will Smith's abortive attempt to have a music career. If the RIAA is so unconcerned about their image that they will do things that blatant I think we can look forward to radio stations playing a half hour of
Re: (Score:2)
You mean to have a music career *again*. He had a music career before he started acting. Given the age of most people on slashdot, though, you might be too young to remember The Fresh Prince and DJ Jazzy Jeff.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Everyone had that damned album on my street -- it was quite the nightmare.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Big difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, sci-fi action romantic comedy, that's guaranteed a watch in my house. Makes sense in the public at large, too: sci-fi to interest the kids and the nerds (who are more likely to spend money on movies or DVDs than jocks are), action to interest the males, romance for the females, and comedy because nobody watches a downer movie for fun. (I oversimplify, but not by a lot.)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Way too little (Score:2)
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.
waah mommy (Score:2, Insightful)
That's "Commissioner" as in FCC Commissioner. So hey, maybe the feds are on the right track for once.
Re: (Score:2)
Please find me someone that isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They've already paid their settlement, unknowingly (Score:5, Interesting)
Large broadcast companies probably have paid a higher price in loss of listenership, as their tired, weary, and limited playlists have driven more and more people to alternatives such as iPods, MP3 players and satellite radio.
Sure, go ahead, fine them, order them to allocate time to new acts, that's a small loss they can see on their balance sheets in comparison to the difficult to calculate loss of listenership.
Re:They've already paid their settlement, unknowin (Score:2)
At this point, I'm happy to report that I no longer know anything about any of the local radio stations.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Between 6am and midnight.. (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-ex-payola5mar06
The relevant part:
"In a separate agreement, the radio companies have agreed to set aside 8,400 half-hour segments of free airtime over the next three years for local and independent artists. The segments would have to air between 6 a.m. and midnight."
Real tough. (Score:2)
So, 11:30PM to 12:00AM on Monday night it is, then! (Seriously, that's not much of a requirement; after 8PM or so, radio listnership absolutely plummets because the rush hour drive is done and practically everyone is home. I can't tell you what's on then, because I never hear it, but on the local rock station where I used to live, they used to run this Lovelines-type call-in-about-your-penile-boils show from like 11PM on.)
Re: (Score:2)
Now divide this by the number of radio stations owned by the broadcasters....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Corporate power must be recorded and challenged. (Score:3, Insightful)
Just the broadcasters? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just the broadcasters? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Just the broadcasters? (Score:5, Funny)
I don't try to pawn my VCR for $10 at 2am to get my Britney Spears fix?
Re: (Score:2)
If the music label pays for airtime, that's advertising. If the record company reports it as an unpaid play, that's payola. That's the moment of illegality.
Re: (Score:2)
Call the IRS and the FTC (Score:2)
They were fined. (Score:2)
But they both get their own day in court. This is the same thing.
this explains how lindsay lohan got on the radio (Score:2)
Hell, CDs are still essentially price fixed, and how long has that been going on?
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: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: (Score:2)
Yes, there are stations that go onto network satellite programming occasionally, or even full-time and pretend to masquerade as locally delivered. I worked several years at a locally-owned radio station that used a Westwood One program feed during the nighttime hours. My experience though, is that most radio stations that serve at least a semi-major market do at least have their own air personalities for morning drive and often the whole daytime hours as well, despite still having the crummy music rotatio
Re: (Score:2)
Variety (Score:4, Funny)
No (Score:2)
They pay the radio stations? (Score:3, Interesting)
I thought that radio stations paid the record companies a license fee in order to broadcast their music? Can somebody in the industry (or with knowhow) clarify how this works?
Yes, they do (Score:4, Informative)
Now, "Internet radio" is something else. They have to pay per play not only to the composers but to the record labels, and they pay handsomely. Of course, the artists still don't get anything but at least we're being protected from the horrors of radio over the Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
But anyway, you pay royalties to the copyright holder for the composition. It could be anyone, and probably more than likely is a record label.
Re: (Score:2)
Radio stations pay money to either ASCAP [wikipedia.org] (the first) or BMI [wikipedia.org] (created to compete with ASCAP) or SESAC [wikipedia.org] (the E stands for Europe), which deal with the licensing of music & the collection of fees.
Basically, the radio stations are going to be paying licensing fees no matter what they put on the air. Payola either gets a new song some airtime, or gets an existing song more airtime.
Payola is legal if the DJ
"independent" labels (Score:5, Insightful)
Just what we need... (Score:2)
I would prefer to have to keep searching for unknown indie music groups rather than have them fed to me, thank you.
Indie Music Jackpot Offer! (LTO) (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
****This is the only definition of selling-out you will ever need.****
Becomming very popular and making tons of money off your music with a lot of air time on radio, tv, etc. = smart.
Becomming very popular and making tons of money off your music with a lot of air time on radio, tv, etc. while losing control of anything you create and having some guy in a suit tell you what you
Marketing for Lemmings (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Because they don't control it.
> satellite radio
ditto.
> and trying to strong-arm their main on-line distributer - Apple.
hat trick.
Perfectly logical when you're looking at an industry that has no ability to deal as an equal. They want total control or nothing. And they have congress to ensure that the latter option isn't available.
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: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
What you don't realize is that, according to their plan, all that doesn't matter. Marketing doesn't matter. Radio doesn't matter. "Customers" (What are they? Surely you mean "consumer whores," right? Or "sheeple," at the least...) don't matter.
So what does matter? Increasingly draconian copyright laws matter. DRM (especially ubiquitous DRM, like how Microsoft is pushing, e.g. WMP adding DRM to ripped tracks by default) matters. Payola between the labels, radio stations, and (DRM'd) hardware and software ma
Re: (Score:2)
After 3 months of XM.. I keep wondering WHY I kept listening to regular radio so much.
What about Air America? (Score:2)
Don't get me wrong, I want to listen to the independent labels and artists, I want to get wide exposure to new (to me) music, but frankly if we live in a free market, don't we need to accept the bad with the good?
They can pay, but they can't lie about paying (Score:3, Interesting)
No one's saying they can't pay to have their songs played. We're just saying they can't lie about doing so.
Re: (Score:2)
Radio spectrum is limited and regulated by the government. Therefore, -- and I want to make sure everyone gets this, because I'm tired seeing it needing to be repeated -- RADIO IS NOT, AND NEVER COULD BE, A FREE MARKET!
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re:What about Air America? (Score:4, Informative)
There you go. My opinion: if radio stations were allowed to accept money for non-advertising plays of songs, only people who could pay would ever be broadcast, which is an abuse of a government granted monopoly.
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Tell that to the folks that run 924 Gilman Street. [wikipedia.org] You got major label distribution, you don't play Gilman. It's a widely disputed policy, but it does make a certain sort of sense, to wit: By sticking to this policy, corporate interests do not get to infiltrate independent/alternative venues with "submarine" artists who will later be re
Re: (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 r
Music is a farm system (Score:3, Interesting)
I wouldn't be surprised to see artist contracts for the independent labels that designate a favored path for contract buyout---"sign with Sony Junior (an independent label) and if your contract is bought out by Sony, you'll get an additional 5% of T-shirt sales!"
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!
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.
WRONG (Score:2)
Does anyone know how to get the airtime? (Score:2)
I'm a local musician and would like some of the free air time.
Anyone know how this can be done?
Do you have a contract with (Score:2)
If you don't, there probably is NO way for you to get any of that time.
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.
Re:How is this "news for nerds"? (Score:5, Funny)
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: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: (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 corre
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's why there's so much trash on the radio now (besides payola, etc). The marketers have figured out that spoon feeding the same tripe to the young immature and uncritical listening a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Re:"pay the governemnt"? (Score:4, Interesting)
10 employees who get paid 100K each
is 3 million dollars over 3 years.
Plus air travel and other crap. Government spends a million just wiping its butt, thats just what happens with large entities that have no direct income for their actions.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
News flash: We're the government. This is another $12.5 million we won't have to pay in taxes.
Congratulations... (Score:2)
Seeing as how you don't seem to grasp the basic premise, let me share it with you. Much as I'd like to, we can't jail a corporation for a VIOLATION OF THE LAW (you seem to be missing that point as well) so we've come up with another approach. It's what's called a fine. The purpose of it is to be punitive. Admittedly, I'd love, for personal reasons, to see the Mays boys of Clear Channel et al sent to federal PMITA prison until