Sony : Payola

[Alndln2]

Looks like the big dog got caught. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,1535935,00.html

[Ani]

It's about time something broke into public view. Payola has never ended; it's just been flying incognito all these years after it became a criminal offense. Same dirty practice; alias identity.

It's obvious that the industry dictates the market by flooding the radio stations with their select group of entertainers. When mainstream recognition is limited to a select few that have the "clout" behind them.... well.... SIGH..... there's not much to choose from in the first place to determine :rolleyes: "popular demand"

I wouldn't want to be the guy that exposed the dirty practice though; must be new to the biz and unaware of the shark infested waters that he swims in.

[drmathprog]

Spitzer's gone too far now. If time-honored techniques such as "outright bribes and showering radio programmers with gifts such as expensive holidays or electronic goods" are no longer permitted as inducements to get artists/songs played, what is a record company to do? Nurture creative and talented artists and songwriters? I ask you, what is the music business coming to? :) ;)

[LiveMusic]

Radio is WORSE than the labels. The radio stations should be shut down and let's start over. Radio is as much or more to blame, the rotten bastards. We've been saying this for years! The public thinks the best songs rise to the top because they're the best. Yeah.

I hope he nails radio.

[Gato]

:rolleyes:

[Joe Cole]

I remember reading a story about payola in which Phillip Bailey of Earth Wind and Fire said point blank that he was happy that his label used payola to get music on the radio.

His explaination was that a reason behind signing with a label is the depth of their connections at retail and media.


My 2 cents, in Canada we have the CRTC which regulates broadcasting. They have ensured mediocrity with their policies. Radio is terrible in Canada, especially in Quebec.

Thank God for internet radio.

[santos]

Originally posted by LiveMusic
...The public thinks the best songs rise to the top because they're the best. Yeah.

I know people who think like that. Not that the songs are good, but have an attitude of "well, they must be good musicians if they're on the radio".

That drives me crazy. Popularity or commercial gain are not a measure of artistic worth. Which is not to say that all popular music lacks artistic value, but I absolutely detest the manufactured pop "products" shoved down the throats of the (generally young) music-buying public.

[60hurts]

"The cancer of payola cannot be pinned on rock and roll." ....Billboard Magazine. Billboard stated payola was rampant during vaudeville of the 20s, and the big band era of the 1930s and 1940s.

From: http://www.history-of-rock.com/payola.htm

Payola always was and always will be. There are too many talentless people around for it to go away.

[blue2blue]

I'd vote for Spitzer for prez... a much better choice than some of the far better known potential candidates.

[Badside]

Originally posted by Joe Cole
My 2 cents, in Canada we have the CRTC which regulates broadcasting. They have ensured mediocrity with their policies. Radio is terrible in Canada, especially in Quebec.

Thank God for internet radio.

Yep, good old quotas that forces radios to play 65% french content. Well it's not so bad, without them, no local band would get to play on the radio (except the ones signed with big labels)

They don't specify how much good music they need to play though...

What I hate is the lack of personality on radio these days. You'll turn the radio on and hear say Green Day, ok not so bad. But then right after they insult you with shit like Hollaback Girl.
God damn it! Make up your mind, you're a rock radio or a shit radio?!?

I wish I could get Galaxie in my car (music stations on digital TV), I guess that will be possible with digital radio. Not everything they play is great, but they constantly play bands I've never heard about, or less popular songs from relatively well known artists.

[Markyboard]

I never understood why this is illegal. Isn't radio a private business? Why can't somebody pay a radio station a lot of money to favor their songs? Not that I'm defending it or supporting it. I'm just ignorant as to why this is legally not allowed. Please explain.

[stratton]

Originally posted by Markyboard
I never understood why this is illegal. Isn't radio a private business? Why can't somebody pay a radio station a lot of money to favor their songs? Not that I'm defending it or supporting it. I'm just ignorant as to why this is legally not allowed. Please explain.

I've known for years that payola was illegal. Now that you've asked the question I realize I don't don't understand either.

It's my station, right? I bought the station and the license to use the frequency, why shouldn't I be able to take cash or favors from anybody who has the money to get their stuff played? Who is the victim here?

Ken

[Alndln2]

Originally posted by Markyboard
I never understood why this is illegal. Isn't radio a private business?Private or not,there are laws and guidelines that have to be adhered to. Why can't somebody pay a radio station a lot of money to favor their songs?Because it's against the law(FCC) and for good reason and also falls under unfair buisness practices.

[Alndln2]

Originally posted by LiveMusic
Radio is WORSE than the labels. The radio stations should be shut down and let's start over.Agreed.What were really talking about here is a record company paying to be played on a narrow and restricted format to begin with.Companies like Clear Channel should be scrutinzed much more closely due to their monopolistic behavior.

[Jotown]

Originally posted by stratton


I've known for years that payola was illegal. Now that you've asked the question I realize I don't don't understand either.

It's my station, right? I bought the station and the license to use the frequency, why shouldn't I be able to take cash or favors from anybody who has the money to get their stuff played? Who is the victim here?

Ken Who is the victim here? The public. Even though the system is rigged to favor big biz, the fact remains that the airwaves are owned by the people; thats why the FCC is supposed to regulate how and what gets on the radio.:rolleyes:

There was a time that although it was rampant, it was still illegal and considered wrong. The new name for payola is "Consulting fee" and it is legal until something is actually done about it. I hope this is the beginning of a reversal of a very bad trend; but I wouldn't hold my breath.:mad:

[Markyboard]

I asked why its illegal. Telling me

Because it's against the law(FCC) and for good reason and also falls under unfair buisness practices.

doesnt answer the question.

Even though the system is rigged to favor big biz, the fact remains that the airwaves are owned by the people; thats why the FCC is supposed to regulate how and what gets on the radio.

Better - but I thought other then language content , sex talk etc, the FCC was not concerned with the actual songs that are played. So are they really the ones who say no payola and why do they care? How did this come about? If a radio station chooses to play Happy Birthday for 7 days straight and hasn't received any money for it is this illegal because they are annoying the public? If you don't know it's OK not to answer. Like I said I've always wondered about this.

[stratton]

Originally posted by Jotown
Who is the victim here? The public. Even though the system is rigged to favor big biz, the fact remains that the airwaves are owned by the people; thats why the FCC is supposed to regulate how and what gets on the radio.:rolleyes:

There was a time that although it was rampant, it was still illegal and considered wrong. The new name for payola is "Consulting fee" and it is legal until something is actually done about it. I hope this is the beginning of a reversal of a very bad trend; but I wouldn't hold my breath.:mad:

I don't have the slightest sense of ownership of the airwaves. Given the stranglehold on content that the FCC has, it seems to me that the airwaves are owned by 7 year olds who will be ruined if they happen to see .5s of a female nipple that isn't their mother's.

I did give this some more thought, and it seems that between aggressive labels and greedy entertainment conglomerates like Clear Channel, they could arrange complete domination of the airwaves on all frequencies.

But that IS the case, isn't it? The last time I listened to FM music radio and dug it was in '96, just before an independent local station sold their freq. to some clueless lout who tried Top 40 anything for 6 weeks. Country, Pop, Latin, Oldies, etc.

Another thing, the, um, "people" who own the airwaves also own tuning knobs to switch channels. If some suit wants to saturate a market with the flavor of the month, let 'em grind it into the ground. Listeners will vote with their tuners, as they already have. Listenership is down, and it's because of "consultants" and their greedy partners cramming their product down our throats.

Hopefully, people and the radio industry will rediscover the joy of diversity in music programming, making payola less useful

Ken

[Jotown]

Originally posted by stratton


I don't have the slightest sense of ownership of the airwaves.
Ken Then perhaps you should get more involved and fight for you right to party because "we the people" do indeed own the airwaves.

Originally posted by makyboard
If you don't know it's OK not to answer. Like I said I've always wondered about this. Hey Marky, I don't what about my post you did no understand. The airwaves are owned by the American people. Those who use the airwaves have a responsiblity to provide content that is fairly placed and representative of those listening.

Again; I know that big biz owns and dominates radio, and our needs are rarely served, but that doesn't change the answer to your question. I hope this clears up your confusion.

[seahorse]

Originally posted by LiveMusic
The public thinks the best songs rise to the top because they're the best. Yeah.

I hope he nails radio.
The public buys what they want to hear. All of the payola in the world won't push a bad product.

[Jotown]

Originally posted by seahorse

The public buys what they want to hear. All of the payola in the world won't push a bad product. Do you really believe that?

Think Britney Spears, Ashlee Simpson............... need I go on?

Every video or placement you see on MTV has been bought and paid for. Every artist on TRL has been bought and payed for. The public can only buy the things that they know about, and when all they know about is crap; they buy the most heavily promoted crap, thats all.

Modern Media Marketing 101.

[stratton]

Originally posted by Jotown
Do you really believe that?

Think Britney Spears, Ashlee Simpson............... need I go on?

Every video or placement you see on MTV has been bought and paid for. Every artist on TRL has been bought and payed for. The public can only buy the things that they know about, and when all they know about is crap; they buy the most heavily promoted crap, thats all.

Modern Media Marketing 101.

Britney and Ashlee. I like Ashlee's record, but I'm a biiger fan of John Shanks. Beside the point of course.

Jotown, I think your point is well-made. All one has to do is listen to alternative foprms of radio, XM satellite for example. XM "Unsigned", specifically. There are some great bands doing very cool stuff you never hear about otherwise.

Ken

[Alndln2]

Originally posted by seahorse

The public buys what they want to hear. And their choices are...?

[egelmett]

Then perhaps you should get more involved and fight for you right to party because "we the people" do indeed own the airwaves.

Hey Marky, I don't what about my post you did no understand. The airwaves are owned by the American people. Those who use the airwaves have a responsiblity to provide content that is fairly placed and representative of those listening.


I know this post is long forgotten, but I read it and thought I'd chime in.

:bor: Alert! Yes, this is where it gets boring...

To back Jotown up, he's right. The airwaves are owned by the public. The FCC grants a license to an operator with certain considerations. The operator doesn't buy a license, but they hold one. In return, the operator must follow rules and provide certain public services - like no profanity, emergency broadcast system, those public service announcements, and such. I'm sure there are many more rules but I didn't read the whole USC defining the FCC, or all of the FCC documents regarding radio broadcasting.

But, where payola comes into play is that since a radio station is most likely a commercial endeavor, they stand to profit using public resources, aka airwaves. Operators must let the public know when they've been paid and profit for broadcasting content. Here's a quote from the United State Code which defines the purpose of the FCC - or "The Commission" as they say:

Again, :bor: Alert! Section C lays out verbiage regarding profit on public resources, this is from the United States Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, SubChapter III, Part I (and a bunch of 1, a, ii, etc):


In identifying
classes of licenses and permits to be issued by competitive
bidding, in specifying eligibility and other characteristics of
such licenses and permits, and in designing the methodologies for
use under this subsection, the Commission shall include
safeguards to protect the public interest in the use of the
spectrum and shall seek to promote the purposes specified in
section 151 of this title and the following objectives:
(A) the development and rapid deployment of new technologies,
products, and services for the benefit of the public, including
those residing in rural areas, without administrative or
judicial delays;
(B) promoting economic opportunity and competition and
ensuring that new and innovative technologies are readily
accessible to the American people by avoiding excessive
concentration of licenses and by disseminating licenses among a
wide variety of applicants, including small businesses, rural
telephone companies, and businesses owned by members of
minority groups and women;
****(C) recovery for the public of a portion of the value of the
public spectrum resource made available for commercial use and
avoidance of unjust enrichment through the methods employed to
award uses of that resource;****
(D) efficient and intensive use of the electromagnetic
spectrum;


Additionally, the brief on Payola from the FCC can be found here:

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/PayolaRules.html

I guess what it comes down to is that to pay a radio station to play a track, it needs to be disclosed prior to airing the track. Being paid is not a crime, but to profit when the public is not aware of the profit is misusing the public resources. Unlike adveritising where the radio personalities say 'message from sponsors', songs played on the radio are assumed to be at the sole discretion of the operator, as a hook to sell advertising on public resources.

We are made aware that radio stations have "sponsors" and "advertisers" but I think they've done a sneaky job of making us believe that playing the new Ashley Simpson is altruism!

So, in response to a few earlier posts, no, radio stations can't do whatever they want and deceive the public and profit as a result. Playing Ashley Simpson, while we may agree is against the public good, is just a matter opinion - the wrong one in mine! ;)

Ed

[the stranger]

Private or not,there are laws and guidelines that have to be adhered to.Because it's against the law(FCC) and for good reason and also falls under unfair buisness practices.

I hope they use your argument to ban advertising. :D_~

Funny how it's legal to sell airtime in one regard, but not another.

I never understood why this is illegal. Isn't radio a private business? Why can't somebody pay a radio station a lot of money to favor their songs? Not that I'm defending it or supporting it. I'm just ignorant as to why this is legally not allowed. Please explain.

[the stranger]

Good post, eg!

[chipmcdonald]

I asked why its illegal. Telling me



doesnt answer the question.



Here's an answer:

Because there was a time when the government was supposed to protect the notion of a free-market from monopoly. It's the radio equivalent of price-fixing, it's anti-competitive.

If payola was allowed not only would it enable a monopoly to potentially occur, you would also have a situation where said monopoly would have control over the majority portion of the airwaves.

Which is effectively what we have now, it's just the "payola" aspect is hidden in a different manner.

[Beck]

From the news piece:

"Our investigation shows that, contrary to listener expectations that songs are selected for airplay based on artistic merit and popularity, airtime is often determined by undisclosed payoffs to radio stations and their employees."

They had to conduct an investigation to learn that? :freak:

And yeah, commercial radio is bad for a number of reasons... one, it's only a shadow of what is was. Well I guess it's not what it was at all. It's just another thing I've watched slowly transform into something so different and inferior that it can't claim a heritage from the earlier thing we used to identify with the term. Maybe more along the lines of “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” than a true descendent.

Gold doesn’t turn into fool’s gold… there has to be a switcheroo at some point.

[coyote-1]

"The license to use the frequency".... that frequency, while licensed for use, remains PUBLIC domain. Else the FCC would have no say on content either.
I've known for years that payola was illegal. Now that you've asked the question I realize I don't don't understand either.

It's my station, right? I bought the station and the license to use the frequency, why shouldn't I be able to take cash or favors from anybody who has the money to get their stuff played? Who is the victim here?

Ken

[EnemyofSilence]

What I find ironic is that they do not mention any prosecution of the stations that ACCEPTED the bribes. They are just as culpable, and they're the ones who are granted the licences which have been violated.

It takes two to tan...,er, macarena!

[DeathMonkey]

Agreed.What were really talking about here is a record company paying to be played on a narrow and restricted format to begin with.Companies like Clear Channel should be scrutinzed much more closely due to their monopolistic behavior.

Right here, you've nailed it. If you think Clear Channel doesn't hold it's 1000's of stations as bait for the labels, selling chart spots like Xboxes on ebay, I have a bridge to sell you in Montana.

The fact is that they are all in cohoots - from Mtv to Rolling Stone to Clear Channel to the Majors.

[Alndln2]

I hope they use your argument to ban advertising. :D_~

Funny how it's legal to sell airtime in one regard, but not another. Actually you bring up an interesting point. I'm sure similar corruption goes on their too. Let's say a small company want's to advertise their product or buisness on a big station that has big ratings, I'm sure that station has a ceiling on how much they can charge for those spots, but why do you mostly only hear big companies in those spots? Let's guess. :idea:

[kurfu]

I've known for years that payola was illegal. Now that you've asked the question I realize I don't don't understand either.

It's my station, right? I bought the station and the license to use the frequency, why shouldn't I be able to take cash or favors from anybody who has the money to get their stuff played? Who is the victim here?

Ken


Because you do not *own* the frequency that you are broadcasting on - you have paid for the privilege to use something that is owned by the public, and in theory you would use the frequency for the overall good of the public.... or something like that...

[egelmett]

But, you know what's funny about all this payola crap? Is that the fines are laughable!

If you read some on the page I posted for the FCC, there are some cases, one regarding Bryan Adams' record company.

Somewhere in there, the fines are quoted at $4000. I'm sure record companies pay the radio station enough to benefit the radio station AND pay the fines.

In general, I'm not against advertising, or hell, the radio station receiving disclosed payment to play music. Whatever...that's their business. But, I do think commercial FM radio is going down the toilet to alternative broadcasters...Ipods, internet radio, etc....not because of shady business practices, but because their content sucks.

This may seem a leap in the subject but, watching American Idol kind of shines a light on how record companies (the big ones) think via Simon Cowell. To me, it seems that what Simon Cowell thinks people want is blonde hair, a nice ass and tits, and a pretty face. Now, this just may be his bent as I'm sure he knows what he can sell. But, that stupid contest has shown me one thing, that the listening public doesn't care about such superficialities....I mean look at the winners: Kelly Clarkson - cute but there were hotter women that year but she was the best singer, Rubin Studdard and Clay Aiken - Rubin, physically unattractive but a good singer and Clay, geeksville, but an awesome singer. Fantasia, not pretty in my eyes but damn, she can sing! Carrie Underwood, pretty but nothing outstanding. Again, there were prettier people than her that year. And Taylor Hicks...gray hair? Middle of the road looks? But a very good singer. I doubt Simon would have signed any of these folks just based on looks alone...and I think that's what it seems to be with record companies...they think they can only sell sex appeal. The listening public has a far greater appreciation for talent than the record companies believe.

Same with radio stations....toe the line...stay safe...swallow what the record companies deliver.

Ed

[Prog]

The "free" transmissions are the ones subject to the rules.

Cable TV doesn't have the same restrictions since they use no public airwaves. In fact, there are stations that play NO music, only sitcom reruns.

Satellite may very well have the same lack of restrictions (a good thing) since it is a pay-to-use setup.