Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Terry wrote:
The reason for this is well known, the radio stations are essentially bought and paid for by the record companies through what is known as Payola. So, they aren't in the business of helping you and I enjoy music, they are in the business of making money... No, not at all. Payola is long gone. Back when there was payola, PDs were happy to play new music, because the record companies paid them to play new music. Now everybody is terrified of playing new music, so they all have become followers. Payola is what kept radio fresh and interesting for years, and what you're seeing with the current homogenization of commercial radio is what has happened as a result of it being eliminated. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... Mike Terry wrote: The reason for this is well known, the radio stations are essentially bought and paid for by the record companies through what is known as Payola. So, they aren't in the business of helping you and I enjoy music, they are in the business of making money... No, not at all. Payola is long gone. 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. Back when there was payola, PDs were happy to play new music, because the record companies paid them to play new music. The practice was never prevalent, and most PDs knew it was illegal and a firing offense, too. Few station staffers ever took payola. And even when givin, it affected only the biggest stations in the biggest markets. Now everybody is terrified of playing new music, so they all have become followers. Everyone realizes the average listener only wants to hear a small bit of new music. Payola is what kept radio fresh and interesting for years, and what you're seeing with the current homogenization of commercial radio is what has happened as a result of it being eliminated. It was never widespread. Your theory is wrong. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"David Eduardo" wrote in message ... "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... Mike Terry wrote: The reason for this is well known, the radio stations are essentially bought and paid for by the record companies through what is known as Payola. So, they aren't in the business of helping you and I enjoy music, they are in the business of making money... No, not at all. Payola is long gone. 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. 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. The gift cards would have augmented the station's promotion budget, thus enabling the station to, perhaps, capitalise on the opportunity to greater financial rewards...and all the PD had to do was "give a moment of consideration" to the list of otherwise unremarkable recordings. 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. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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!- |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"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!- |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Bob Haberkost" wrote in message ... 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. -- Artist promotions are seldom done with unknown artists. Usually, stations limit such activities to tie ins with major artists or newer ones who have a string of recent hits. So, the issue for big vs. small labels is in getting initial airplay or sales or alternative media promotion (like clubs for dance music), since stations will not do a promotion with a "small" artist as a general rule. the idea, of course, is to tie in with the bigness of the artist to enhance the station image. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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. -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) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Amateur Radio Newslineâ„¢ Report 1412 Â September 3, 2004 | Broadcasting | |||
Amateur Radio Newslineâ„¢ Report 1402 Â June 25, 2004 | Broadcasting | |||
Amateur Radio Newslineâ„¢ Report 1400 Â June 11, 2004 | Broadcasting | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1379 – January 16, 2004 | Policy | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1379 – January 16, 2004 | Dx |