#79678 by christianlee
Sun Aug 23, 2009 5:06 pm
Sun Aug 23, 2009 5:06 pm
How To Get Air Play Author: “Nashville’s Badboy” (Christian Lee…A.K.A Redneckoulaw Air Play
I think everyone should know about this issue. I wrote this section along with the help of a few documents in an effort to let more people know about how shady the broadcasting industry is becoming. What are we going to do when there is only one play list for the whole nation & listeners don’t have access to other any other type of music.
Today it is illegal for radio stations to take money directly from record companies in exchange for airplay. They figured out how to take money indirectly. Radio stations & Record Labels have found a loophole in this law by using middlemen called independent promotion directors. Record Labels are saying that they’re being forced to pay independent music promoters. Independent promoters then pay the radio stations for the ability to consult with them about records in turn they are illegally paying for these songs to be heard.
I know the independent promoter pays to consult with radio stations & program directors about what songs they want to have played. They say that this does not dictate what songs are played, anyone with half a brain will know there is some shady sh*t going on. Remember that song recorded by Tom Petty called the last DJ, Its true there are no more DJs with the power to play what they want to or what the people really want to hear.
What do Listeners want?
In most cases whether a song gets played on the radio & how long it stays on depends on how good it is. There a lot of great songs that will never get played on commercial radio. There are a lot of politics involved that has nothing to do with talent. In my opinion this is absolutely wrong. I learned a lot about how radio actually works while working for Clear Channel communications. You know the saying though if you can’t beat them join them.
Pay for Play
Payola – Is paying money to someone in exchange for playing a particular song.
Payola has been in the music industry for a long time but the practice didn’t get the publics attention until the 1950s and 1960s when the rock and roll DJ of that time became extremely powerful. I would have definitely wanted to be a DJ at that time, even though I believe in fair business practices. DJs determined what music the public was going to hear at all times. In the 1960s there was a federal law that passed that forbid the direct payment or compensation to DJ’s & other radio station staff in exchange for the playing a certain song unless the payments were announced over the air in form of an advertisement or so they thought. For a while there was no payola going on but this only lasted for a little while. I think it is human nature to get around things especially when there is money involved. Industry veterans decided to use a more indirect form. These practices became standardized business practices now used by broadcasters and Independent radio promoters which result in what I consider still payola. They say the payment is to receive first notice of the station’s play list “or adds.” The new payola practices take two illegitimate forms. Radio consolidation (so they call it) has made Radio station group owners like clear channel establish exclusive arrangements with
“Independent promoters,” who give the radio stations a set a mount of money a month. In exchange for this payment, the radio station group agrees to give the independent promoter first notice of new songs added to its play lists each week. Stations in the group also tend to play mostly records that have been suggested by the independent promoter. As a result of the standardization of this practice, record companies and artists generally must pay the radio stations’ independent promoters if they want to be considered for airplay on those stations.
The second payola-like practice occurs after the music labels hire an “independent radio promoter” to legitimately promote their records to specific stations for a fee. Reportedly, certain indie promoters use the labels’ money to pay the stations for playing songs on the air.
If this is not the same as payola I don’t know what is. Unfortunately, certain Independent promoters use the labels’ money to pay the stations for putting songs on the air. This results in play list programming decisions where talent & what people want to hear isn’t as important as the radio networks finances. The out come of this is, that many up & coming and independent artists, as well as many already well established artists, can’t get the radio air play that they would have deserved. Pay to pay comes in many forms & record labels do whatever it takes. These “so called promotion” costs are often split between the artist & the label. This obviously impacts a performer’s ability to succeed. Most artists in fact still owe their record company after their first record goes gold. I don’t want music played on the radio to have less to do with the music & more to do economics or what ever, because payments are not announced on the air the public if forced into believing what is played on the radio is actually the best music. This is not the best music but it’s the only music that will get nation wide recognition.
The impact of Clear Channel & other conglomerates
Is it fair that one company can control the air waves & the music industry? Why did the federal government loosen up ownership caps on the public? Until late 1996, the FCC regulated ownership of broadcast stations so that any company couldn’t own more than two stations in one market & more then 40 total radio stations nationwide. When Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the restrictions governing ownership of radio stations evaporated. Now, radio groups own numerous stations around the country and exercise unreasonable control over the airwaves. For example, in 1996, there were 5133 owners of radio stations.
Today, for the Contemporary Hit Radio/Top 40 formats, only four radio station groups – Chancellor, Clear Channel, Infinity and Capstar – control access to 63 percent of the format’s 41 million listeners nationwide. For the country format, the same four groups control access to 56 percent of the format’s 28 millions listeners.
This consolidation has led to a new change in the music industry. There is almost only one play list for the entire nation. These centralized play lists have reduced the local flavor and limited the diversity of music played on radio. Due to these big conglomerates market power, radio station groups now have the ability to make or break a hit song, with the increased leverage resulting from ownership consolidation, at least one group owner is considering charging labels for merely identifying the name of the artist and song played. The CEO of Clear Channel told the Los Angeles Times that it might sell song identification as a form of advertising. This miserable practice would injure the music Community and citizens, as it would make it difficult for radio listeners to identify new Artists and purchase new music. This practice would impact the ability of new and Independent artists to succeed in the music business. We request that the FCC investigate consolidation of radio ownership focusing on the public interest which radio stations are supposed to serve. This investigation should look at the difficulties small independent broadcasters face when going up against large and Powerful radio station groups in a specific market. It should study the role that national play list decisions have had on the skyrocketing cost of radio promotion. It should also take into account the impact of reduced staffing levels on members of local stations and the reduction of classical, jazz, bluegrass and other formats from the airwaves.
Integration of Radio Owners into one large group
Many radio groups are also vertically integrated companies increasing their already substantial leverage and control. For example, Clear Channel, a company that owns over 1200 radio stations, also owns tens of thousands of billboards, and various promotion companies and venues. In 1999 Clear Channel purchased SFX Entertainment, the nation’s most powerful concert promoter. This move gave Clear Channel control of the concert promotion industry in most of the key regions of the US virtually overnight. Clear Channel therefore has a direct economic interest in promoting its own concerts and tours on its numerous radio stations over those of the competition. It also has an interest in limiting the promotional support of bands and artists who are performing for other companies, at other venues or who are sponsored by other stations. Some of the remaining independent concert promoters have alleged that Clear Channel is engaging in anti-competitive behavior by using this leverage to force smaller companies out of business. In particular, the mid-size promoter NIPP in Denver brought suit against Clear Channel in 2001, alleging that Clear Channel which owns all three rock stations In the Denver area was not running the ads that NIPP paid for on its stations to promote Last year’s NIPP-promoted Warped Tour.
There have been other allegations from bands and performers – mostly off-the-record for fear of retaliation – who have stated that radio Station groups have pressured them into playing shows for free in exchange for airplay, or who have had their songs removed from play lists for playing non-exclusive venues.
We would like to see the FCC investigate whether an artist’s choice to play or not to play In Clear Channel venues or to use or not to use clear Channel’s promotion company impacts the artist’s positions on or removal from Clear Channel play lists.
Community Radio
Rampant consolidation of commercial radio and increased budgetary pressures felt by Non-commercial stations have led to a reduction in radio play for musical genres like Classical, jazz, opera and bluegrass. Congress needs to reevaluate the current status of Non-commercial radio, including exploring new strategies for sustaining existing
Community radio stations and moving forward with full implementation of community based Low Power FM radio. After an intense lobbying campaign by the National Association of Broadcasters and NPR, the FCC’s Low Power FM plan was scaled back significantly via an Appropriations rider in 2000. The FCC is currently following
Congresses request for additional testing of the impact of these tiny stations on existing broadcasters. Once the FCC report is submitted to Congress, Congress must move forward by passing legislation to authorize the FCC to license these stations in urban areas. If consolidation in the radio environment has stifled competition and reduced diversity of programming, low power radio can begin to address the lack of community based programming.
Conclusion
We are deeply concerned about payola and payola-like practices, as well as the problems caused by radio station ownership consolidation, and the vertical integration of station ownership with venue ownership and concert promoters. New rules must be written by the FCC to prohibit payments to radio stations from “independent promoters” unless such payments are announced. The FCC must seriously evaluate whether a radio station is even satisfying the current license requirement that sponsorship identification or disclosure must accompany any material that is broadcast in exchange for money,
Service or anything else of value paid to a station, either directly or indirectly. The FCC should also consider whether radio stations are serving the public interest by contributing to localism and independence in broadcasting. Finally, Congress must be vigilant in ensuring that the FCC is upholding the public interest in all of these matters. Fill free to contact me if you so wish!
Nashville Recording Artist
Christian Lee
Nashville,Tn
Baton Rouge,La
http://www.myspace.com/christianleeredneckoutlaw http://www.reverbnation.com/christianleeredneckoutlaw
I think everyone should know about this issue. I wrote this section along with the help of a few documents in an effort to let more people know about how shady the broadcasting industry is becoming. What are we going to do when there is only one play list for the whole nation & listeners don’t have access to other any other type of music.
Today it is illegal for radio stations to take money directly from record companies in exchange for airplay. They figured out how to take money indirectly. Radio stations & Record Labels have found a loophole in this law by using middlemen called independent promotion directors. Record Labels are saying that they’re being forced to pay independent music promoters. Independent promoters then pay the radio stations for the ability to consult with them about records in turn they are illegally paying for these songs to be heard.
I know the independent promoter pays to consult with radio stations & program directors about what songs they want to have played. They say that this does not dictate what songs are played, anyone with half a brain will know there is some shady sh*t going on. Remember that song recorded by Tom Petty called the last DJ, Its true there are no more DJs with the power to play what they want to or what the people really want to hear.
What do Listeners want?
In most cases whether a song gets played on the radio & how long it stays on depends on how good it is. There a lot of great songs that will never get played on commercial radio. There are a lot of politics involved that has nothing to do with talent. In my opinion this is absolutely wrong. I learned a lot about how radio actually works while working for Clear Channel communications. You know the saying though if you can’t beat them join them.
Pay for Play
Payola – Is paying money to someone in exchange for playing a particular song.
Payola has been in the music industry for a long time but the practice didn’t get the publics attention until the 1950s and 1960s when the rock and roll DJ of that time became extremely powerful. I would have definitely wanted to be a DJ at that time, even though I believe in fair business practices. DJs determined what music the public was going to hear at all times. In the 1960s there was a federal law that passed that forbid the direct payment or compensation to DJ’s & other radio station staff in exchange for the playing a certain song unless the payments were announced over the air in form of an advertisement or so they thought. For a while there was no payola going on but this only lasted for a little while. I think it is human nature to get around things especially when there is money involved. Industry veterans decided to use a more indirect form. These practices became standardized business practices now used by broadcasters and Independent radio promoters which result in what I consider still payola. They say the payment is to receive first notice of the station’s play list “or adds.” The new payola practices take two illegitimate forms. Radio consolidation (so they call it) has made Radio station group owners like clear channel establish exclusive arrangements with
“Independent promoters,” who give the radio stations a set a mount of money a month. In exchange for this payment, the radio station group agrees to give the independent promoter first notice of new songs added to its play lists each week. Stations in the group also tend to play mostly records that have been suggested by the independent promoter. As a result of the standardization of this practice, record companies and artists generally must pay the radio stations’ independent promoters if they want to be considered for airplay on those stations.
The second payola-like practice occurs after the music labels hire an “independent radio promoter” to legitimately promote their records to specific stations for a fee. Reportedly, certain indie promoters use the labels’ money to pay the stations for playing songs on the air.
If this is not the same as payola I don’t know what is. Unfortunately, certain Independent promoters use the labels’ money to pay the stations for putting songs on the air. This results in play list programming decisions where talent & what people want to hear isn’t as important as the radio networks finances. The out come of this is, that many up & coming and independent artists, as well as many already well established artists, can’t get the radio air play that they would have deserved. Pay to pay comes in many forms & record labels do whatever it takes. These “so called promotion” costs are often split between the artist & the label. This obviously impacts a performer’s ability to succeed. Most artists in fact still owe their record company after their first record goes gold. I don’t want music played on the radio to have less to do with the music & more to do economics or what ever, because payments are not announced on the air the public if forced into believing what is played on the radio is actually the best music. This is not the best music but it’s the only music that will get nation wide recognition.
The impact of Clear Channel & other conglomerates
Is it fair that one company can control the air waves & the music industry? Why did the federal government loosen up ownership caps on the public? Until late 1996, the FCC regulated ownership of broadcast stations so that any company couldn’t own more than two stations in one market & more then 40 total radio stations nationwide. When Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the restrictions governing ownership of radio stations evaporated. Now, radio groups own numerous stations around the country and exercise unreasonable control over the airwaves. For example, in 1996, there were 5133 owners of radio stations.
Today, for the Contemporary Hit Radio/Top 40 formats, only four radio station groups – Chancellor, Clear Channel, Infinity and Capstar – control access to 63 percent of the format’s 41 million listeners nationwide. For the country format, the same four groups control access to 56 percent of the format’s 28 millions listeners.
This consolidation has led to a new change in the music industry. There is almost only one play list for the entire nation. These centralized play lists have reduced the local flavor and limited the diversity of music played on radio. Due to these big conglomerates market power, radio station groups now have the ability to make or break a hit song, with the increased leverage resulting from ownership consolidation, at least one group owner is considering charging labels for merely identifying the name of the artist and song played. The CEO of Clear Channel told the Los Angeles Times that it might sell song identification as a form of advertising. This miserable practice would injure the music Community and citizens, as it would make it difficult for radio listeners to identify new Artists and purchase new music. This practice would impact the ability of new and Independent artists to succeed in the music business. We request that the FCC investigate consolidation of radio ownership focusing on the public interest which radio stations are supposed to serve. This investigation should look at the difficulties small independent broadcasters face when going up against large and Powerful radio station groups in a specific market. It should study the role that national play list decisions have had on the skyrocketing cost of radio promotion. It should also take into account the impact of reduced staffing levels on members of local stations and the reduction of classical, jazz, bluegrass and other formats from the airwaves.
Integration of Radio Owners into one large group
Many radio groups are also vertically integrated companies increasing their already substantial leverage and control. For example, Clear Channel, a company that owns over 1200 radio stations, also owns tens of thousands of billboards, and various promotion companies and venues. In 1999 Clear Channel purchased SFX Entertainment, the nation’s most powerful concert promoter. This move gave Clear Channel control of the concert promotion industry in most of the key regions of the US virtually overnight. Clear Channel therefore has a direct economic interest in promoting its own concerts and tours on its numerous radio stations over those of the competition. It also has an interest in limiting the promotional support of bands and artists who are performing for other companies, at other venues or who are sponsored by other stations. Some of the remaining independent concert promoters have alleged that Clear Channel is engaging in anti-competitive behavior by using this leverage to force smaller companies out of business. In particular, the mid-size promoter NIPP in Denver brought suit against Clear Channel in 2001, alleging that Clear Channel which owns all three rock stations In the Denver area was not running the ads that NIPP paid for on its stations to promote Last year’s NIPP-promoted Warped Tour.
There have been other allegations from bands and performers – mostly off-the-record for fear of retaliation – who have stated that radio Station groups have pressured them into playing shows for free in exchange for airplay, or who have had their songs removed from play lists for playing non-exclusive venues.
We would like to see the FCC investigate whether an artist’s choice to play or not to play In Clear Channel venues or to use or not to use clear Channel’s promotion company impacts the artist’s positions on or removal from Clear Channel play lists.
Community Radio
Rampant consolidation of commercial radio and increased budgetary pressures felt by Non-commercial stations have led to a reduction in radio play for musical genres like Classical, jazz, opera and bluegrass. Congress needs to reevaluate the current status of Non-commercial radio, including exploring new strategies for sustaining existing
Community radio stations and moving forward with full implementation of community based Low Power FM radio. After an intense lobbying campaign by the National Association of Broadcasters and NPR, the FCC’s Low Power FM plan was scaled back significantly via an Appropriations rider in 2000. The FCC is currently following
Congresses request for additional testing of the impact of these tiny stations on existing broadcasters. Once the FCC report is submitted to Congress, Congress must move forward by passing legislation to authorize the FCC to license these stations in urban areas. If consolidation in the radio environment has stifled competition and reduced diversity of programming, low power radio can begin to address the lack of community based programming.
Conclusion
We are deeply concerned about payola and payola-like practices, as well as the problems caused by radio station ownership consolidation, and the vertical integration of station ownership with venue ownership and concert promoters. New rules must be written by the FCC to prohibit payments to radio stations from “independent promoters” unless such payments are announced. The FCC must seriously evaluate whether a radio station is even satisfying the current license requirement that sponsorship identification or disclosure must accompany any material that is broadcast in exchange for money,
Service or anything else of value paid to a station, either directly or indirectly. The FCC should also consider whether radio stations are serving the public interest by contributing to localism and independence in broadcasting. Finally, Congress must be vigilant in ensuring that the FCC is upholding the public interest in all of these matters. Fill free to contact me if you so wish!
Nashville Recording Artist
Christian Lee
Nashville,Tn
Baton Rouge,La
http://www.myspace.com/christianleeredneckoutlaw http://www.reverbnation.com/christianleeredneckoutlaw