|
"Bob Haberkost" wrote in message ... "David Eduardo" wrote in message Untrue. A PD was fired in Rochester for accepting the latest record company scam, giving gift cards 2to give to listeners" which the PD kept... that was last week. There were a half-dozen indictments about 5 years ago in CA, resulting in two convictions. I wouldn't call that payola, though, David. That's just fraud or larceny. It's clear payola. every communications attorney in the US sent a note to clients saying about the same thing, too. The record company said, "Hey, Mr. PD, here are a few thousand dollars in gift cards for on air promotion. (wink, wink). why don't you give them away on the air... if you want." the idea was that if they did nto get given away, the record duck was not going tocompalin, and the PD could go on a shopping spree. Clear and present payola. But the problem remains that in its executed form (where said gift cards actually go to said listeners), it's still a corruption of the way things should be. There was no intent to give anything to listeners. Payola or not, anyone having an interest in the music business should be barred from offering any rewards to the outlets or their representatives who make decisions on whether or not that outlet should be playing the output from the music business. Artist based promotions have been a legal and legitimate synergistic promotion with radio for many, many decades. As long as there is disclosure, it is legit. The minute management approves, there is no payola possible. |
On 27 Nov 2004 23:46:06 GMT, "Bob Haberkost"
wrote: Payola or not, anyone having an interest in the music business should be barred from offering any rewards to the outlets or their representatives who make decisions on whether or not that outlet should be playing the output from the music business. Like that's going to happen anytime soon. Hmm. I've signed several employment agreements as well as employee manuals that require me either to not accept anything above a certain value (lunch not included) or return the gift to the sender. Boston Gas sent a toy locomotive to me at Christmas one year. I was working for GE's WJIB(FM). Their campaign was called the "Montreal Express," named for the cold winds from the North. I had to return it. Rich |
|
"Garrett Wollman" wrote in message ... In article , David Eduardo wrote: Everyone realizes the average listener only wants to hear a small bit of new music. Only if you accept the thesis that "the average listener" is a drooling idiot. Only if you actually ask, as I do, tens of thousands of listeners a year what they want to hear. essentially non want to hear more than a small number of new songs each week. Of course, since two decades of radio programming directed towards morons has driven many non-morons away from radio entirely (at least as a source on musical entertainment), this could now reasonably be stipulated as the audience living up (or rather, down) to programmers' expectations. This is true of most human beings, radio listeners or not. The unfamiliar is harder to assimilate than the familiar. Go to a club sometime and see which songs the folks dance to... is it the unfamiliar or the known? Go to an artist concert... when do the folks applaud? I'll bet it is when the artist sings the big hits, not when they sing the unfamiliar new stuff they want to hype from the new album. 95% of Americas listen to radio. Either you are wrong, or there are not many bright people in America any more. |
In article ,
David Eduardo wrote: 95% of Americas listen to radio. I don't believe that number for a moment (even stipulating the typo). If you had said "are exposed to radio every week", I might be willing to go along. But exposure and the sort of attention that is implied by "listen" are very different things -- something advertisers are beginning to understand. (That's also one of the flaws in Arbitron's "portable people meter" methodology: it's as good a measure as the sample size allows for *exposure*, but can't measure *listening*.) As an advertiser, a potential customer who is merely exposed to my message is not worth nearly as much as a potential customer who is actually paying attention.[1] Although the current talk about shorter stop sets is evidence that both broadcasters and advertisers are getting this message, it's not clear that they will really benefit, now that they have trained the audience to tune out (either mentally or physically) as soon as the first spot begins. (How do you promote shorter stop sets? "Only five commercials up next before another long music set on Q-92?") Meanwhile, we have a whole generation growing up in today's toxic media environment who neither look to radio for entertainment nor are particularly influenced by current modes of advertising. (Brings a new meaning to "you're soaking in it!") Compare the size of a suburban teenager's music collection to the playlist of one of your radio stations; I'll bet you nine times out of ten, your hypothetical teenager enjoys a greater variety of music than you play. For most of the past forty years, music radio has been the leader in introducing people to new music, which they could then go out and buy. (That's why over-the-air radio only has to pay license fees to the songwriters and composers, and not to the performers or record labels: it's considered a promotional expense to sell more recordings and concert tickets.) Today, with a few bright exceptions, radio has made itself largely irrelevant to this marketplace. Is it any wonder that audiences no longer expect radio to provide new music? Either you are wrong, or there are not many bright people in America any more. There never were, by definition. Garrison Keillor to the contrary, there is no place were "all the children are above average". -GAWollman [1] A good example: I was at my dentist's office last week. As an observant person and radio junkie, I noticed that she had WCRB on, rather than her usual WROR-FM. If I had been wearing a PPM, it would have credited WCRB with 45 minutes of my time -- even though I paid no attention to it (or to the advertising messages) after recognizing the source. I know from talking to my dentist that she puts the radio on to provide soothing background noise; only a patient who has arrived early for an appointment has enough attentional resources to notice the actual content of the programming. I regularly freak out Jennifer, the dental assistant, when I make an off-hand comment about something that just came out of the radio, and she had so completely tuned it out as background noise that she has absolutely no idea what I'm talking about. -- Garrett A. Wollman | As the Constitution endures, persons in every | generation can invoke its principles in their own Opinions not those of| search for greater freedom. MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - A. Kennedy, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. ___ (2003) |
I don't see AM/FM radio having a future.Other than news,what reason is
there,to listen to AM/FM radio anymore? And how many news stations can you really have in an area? Annoying dj's,cheesy contests,etc..not for me! And AM/FM stations have an average of what,15-16 minutes of commercials per hour? As far as music,I've gone to satellite radio. |
"David Eduardo" wrote in message ... "Bob Haberkost" wrote in message ... "David Eduardo" wrote in message Untrue. A PD was fired in Rochester for accepting the latest record company scam, giving gift cards 2to give to listeners" which the PD kept... that was last week. There were a half-dozen indictments about 5 years ago in CA, resulting in two convictions. I wouldn't call that payola, though, David. That's just fraud or larceny. It's clear payola. every communications attorney in the US sent a note to clients saying about the same thing, too. The record company said, "Hey, Mr. PD, here are a few thousand dollars in gift cards for on air promotion. (wink, wink). why don't you give them away on the air... if you want." the idea was that if they did nto get given away, the record duck was not going tocompalin, and the PD could go on a shopping spree. Clear and present payola. But the problem remains that in its executed form (where said gift cards actually go to said listeners), it's still a corruption of the way things should be. There was no intent to give anything to listeners. Payola or not, anyone having an interest in the music business should be barred from offering any rewards to the outlets or their representatives who make decisions on whether or not that outlet should be playing the output from the music business. Artist based promotions have been a legal and legitimate synergistic promotion with radio for many, many decades. As long as there is disclosure, it is legit. The minute management approves, there is no payola possible. Fair enough, on all counts. Certainly the issue of intent has a lot to do with it. I still think that artist-oriented promotions are bad for the business, though, since it gives the established major labels more of an advantage than the indies. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- If there's nothing that offends you in your community, then you know you're not living in a free society. Kim Campbell - ex-Prime Minister of Canada - 2004 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!- |
"Garrett Wollman" wrote in message ... In article , David Eduardo wrote: 95% of Americas listen to radio. I don't believe that number for a moment (even stipulating the typo). If you had said "are exposed to radio every week", I might be willing to go along. But exposure and the sort of attention that is implied by "listen" are very different things -- something advertisers are beginning to understand. Advertisers are not making distinctions because what they care about is getting the message across, not who turned the radio on. In any case, many different methodologies, including Arbitron, show that 95% of average Americans... or Canadians... or Mexicans... listen to the radio at least once a week with enough awareness to identify such listening. Such surveys can even be replicated with simple phone samples. It is a fairly uncontested fact in media and ad circles. (That's also one of the flaws in Arbitron's "portable people meter" methodology: it's as good a measure as the sample size allows for *exposure*, but can't measure *listening*.) First, no one cares. Second, the People Meter is not in use yet in the US and it will probably not be until,perhaps, 2007 at the earliest. As an advertiser, a potential customer who is merely exposed to my message is not worth nearly as much as a potential customer who is actually paying attention.[1] There is no way of telling this with any kind of sample. Advertisers know this, and know that a percentage of messages are not noticed for a variety of reasons. You won't see this discussed in AdAge... just here, where no national advertisers are paying any attention. Although the current talk about shorter stop sets is evidence that both broadcasters and advertisers are getting this message, it's not clear that they will really benefit, now that they have trained the audience to tune out (either mentally or physically) as soon as the first spot begins. (How do you promote shorter stop sets? "Only five commercials up next before another long music set on Q-92?") Shorter stop sets are intended to improve the effectiveness of messages and to keep listeners longer. Many boroadcasters were not running excessive spot loads anyway... and none were running the loads common in the 50's and 60's. Meanwhile, we have a whole generation growing up in today's toxic media environment who neither look to radio for entertainment nor are particularly influenced by current modes of advertising. (Brings a new meaning to "you're soaking in it!") Compare the size of a suburban teenager's music collection to the playlist of one of your radio stations; I'll bet you nine times out of ten, your hypothetical teenager enjoys a greater variety of music than you play. Radio does not target teens in most markets since there is little ad money against them. For most of the past forty years, music radio has been the leader in introducing people to new music, which they could then go out and buy. (That's why over-the-air radio only has to pay license fees to the songwriters and composers, and not to the performers or record labels: it's considered a promotional expense to sell more recordings and concert tickets.) Wrong. the reason the RIAA never got performance rights such as are common in other developed nations is that they did not get to the table early enough, and now it is too late. As to being considered promotional expense, that is pure malarky. Today, with a few bright exceptions, radio has made itself largely irrelevant to this marketplace. Is it any wonder that audiences no longer expect radio to provide new music? They never did, except in small amounts. what has happened is that more now music is being exposed today, as there are more formats available on more stations in every market. A couple of weekly adds a week across 10 formats is a lot of songs; in the 50's and 60's you got 2 to 3 adds on a mass appeal top 40 station, and that was all. [1] A good example: I was at my dentist's office last week. As an observant person and radio junkie, I noticed that she had WCRB on, rather than her usual WROR-FM. If I had been wearing a PPM, it would have credited WCRB with 45 minutes of my time -- even though I paid no attention to it (or to the advertising messages) after recognizing the source. No different than a person who puts on a radio and leaves it on during work... may only hear part of the ads. Advertisers know that. Always been that way. |
In article ,
David Eduardo wrote: Radio does not target teens in most markets since there is little ad money against them. Today's teens are not going to magically "grow into" radio listeners when they hit 21. I work with a lot of twenty-somethings, and when I ask them about what their radio listening preferences are, the answer I invariably get (and have gotten for at least the past five years) is "none". They have no use for it.[1] Not having formed the radio habit, they are unlikely to suddenly start listenting when they leave school. -GAWollman [1] Just look around at college stations whose affiliated schools do not have broadcast, communications, or journalism programs. Many of them have great difficulty getting actual students (whose activity fees often pay for the station) to take any interest at all in radio as anything other than "a bigger music collection than I have at home". All too often, the program schedule is dominated by alumni, unaffiliated community members, and others from the previous generation. -- Garrett A. Wollman | As the Constitution endures, persons in every | generation can invoke its principles in their own Opinions not those of| search for greater freedom. MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - A. Kennedy, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. ___ (2003) |
In article ,
David Eduardo wrote: [I wrote:] an advertiser, a potential customer who is merely exposed to my message is not worth nearly as much as a potential customer who is actually paying attention.[1] There is no way of telling this with any kind of sample. Advertisers know this, and know that a percentage of messages are not noticed for a variety of reasons. You won't see this discussed in AdAge... just here, where no national advertisers are paying any attention. Actually, there is a very easy way for an advertiser to tell whether their message is reaching customers who are paying attention: ask the customers! I can't think of any major purchase I've made where the seller did not do so, either at the time of sale/service or during post-sales followup. I've also been the recipient of a number of brand-awareness telephone surveys which measure the same thing for non-durable goods. Today, with a few bright exceptions, radio has made itself largely irrelevant to this marketplace. Is it any wonder that audiences no longer expect radio to provide new music? They never did, except in small amounts. That's odd. Evidently you were not listening to the same radio stations as I was in the 1980s. what has happened is that more now music is being exposed today, as there are more formats available on more stations in every market. A couple of weekly adds a week across 10 formats is a lot of songs; Nobody listens to ten formats in one week. -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | As the Constitution endures, persons in every | generation can invoke its principles in their own Opinions not those of| search for greater freedom. MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - A. Kennedy, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. ___ (2003) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:29 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com