Payola
In a move that might partially explain why music radio is so crappy these days, the FCC is in the midst of its' widest-ranging payola investigation in years, perhaps ever:
Hundreds of radio stations are under investigation by the Federal Communications Commission in the payola scandal rocking the music industry, ABC has learned.
"The FCC staff is working with voluminous evidence right now. It's a complicated and wide-ranging investigation." FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein told ABC News in an exclusive interview.
Traditional payola - supplying cash, drugs and perks to disk jockeys in exchange for more airplay - is basically a dead issue in an era where playlists are set by corporate offices. So that's where the payola allegedly goes:
"This is potentially the most wide spread and flagrant violation of FCC rules in the history of American broadcasting," Adelstein said. "We've never seen evidence of such a systematic betrayal of the responsibility of broadcasters."...In the modern version, the money goes to the bottom line of the radio stations and the conglomerates that own them, according to New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.
"We have people in suits coming in with documents rather than cash payments under the table to a DJ," Spitzer told ABC News Chief Investigative Correspondent Brian Ross.
Question, Mr. Spitzer: Was one of those people in suits Ethan Coen? Did the money to the conglomerate's bottom line come from
Gloria Wise?
I digress:
Several of the largest radio conglomerates in America — the corporate owners of FM radio stations across the nation — are within the scope of the FCC probe, which was triggered by the two year long pay-for-play investigation by Spitzer and was first reported on by ABC News.
As noted in previous mentions of this investigation, payola would explain Jennifer Lopez' continued singing career.
Good thing talk radio is beyond that.
Or is it? It'd certainly explain why Glenn Beck has a career in syndicated radio.
Hypothetically, of course.
Posted by Mitch at
February 10, 2006 06:48 AM
| TrackBack
Death to ClearChannel!
Posted by: Kermit at February 10, 2006 08:00 AMI stopped listening to music on the radio years ago, except for the occasional "Mountain Stage", or other locally produced programs, usually on that evil "public radio". It seemed obvious to me, even when I was very young, that the music I heard on the radio sucked.
I don't understand, relate to, or even want to relate to most people's musical tastes.
But... is "payola" just another free enterprise way of doing business?
Do you want it regulated?
As far as the music side of it goes, would eliminating pay to play actually improve the available choices?
Maybe we can have a McCain-Feingold for the music industry too.
There is no reason for Nascar/Budweiser/Clearchannel, et al. to fear quality competition. They've already own the "stupid majority".
Posted by: jackscrow at February 10, 2006 08:33 AMMusic radio may be going the way of the Swiss watchmakers. The iPod, Satellite Radio (XM e.g.), PC jukebox software, wireless speakers, Internet radio (Live365, e.g.), and even Digital Cable's wide array of music channels are all chipping away at the FM empire.
Posted by: R-Five at February 10, 2006 09:13 AMWe desperately need to get payola out of FM music radio. And just as desperately need to get it IN to AM talk radio. Show me the payola!
P.S. Your comment spam blocker won't allow me to use the word "u r g e n t l y." Lame.
Posted by: the elder at February 10, 2006 10:19 AMIt's even scarier: tell folks that something's "popular" and it becomes popular. Strange, but true. You might check out this report http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/060209_hit_songs.html, (via Slashdot). The one sentence summary is pretty simple, that "A new study reveals that we make our music purchases based partly on our perceived preferences of others."
Jack rants: "But... is "payola" just another free enterprise way of doing business?"
No, it's the way a monopoly does business. The barriers to entry in radio are high and government enforced. Most libertarian-oriented, small government folks would prefer to see more competition via micropower FM stations, but both those big corporate entities and "public radio" have suceeded in shooting that down with help from both sides of the aisle.
"There is no reason for Nascar/Budweiser/Clearchannel, et al. to fear quality competition. They've already own the "stupid majority"."
Ah, the liberal mindset on full display: Anybody who doesn't think like I do is stupid! Good luck getting converts with that attitude, buddy.
Posted by: nerdbert at February 10, 2006 10:50 AMNaw, Nerdbert, just people who watch Nascar, drink Bud, and listen to Clearchannel... and possibly you.
And by "payola being just another way to do business", isn't it just all advertising? You pay, I play? Isn't that the freemarket, libertarian way?
And I guess asking questions qualifies as "ranting"?
Posted by: jackscrow at February 10, 2006 12:35 PMI can't remember the last time I listened to music on FM, or AM.
XM only now. Mostly Ch. 70.
Posted by: RBMN at February 10, 2006 12:59 PMJack, by your definition advertising is payola. But payola is when the "advertiser" is preventing competition surrepitiously. It's the difference between a payment and a bribe, or between full disclosure and deception.
Now, we can discuss over whether someone should be able to pay for play, but as it stands now, the government regulates the number of stations as part of "managing a public resource," and it makes the rules that you can't do that.
Personally, I'd prefer a more free hand with many more micropower stations, but entrenched interests on both sides don't want that. A more ideal situation would be having the equivalent of over-the-air Sirius/XM where you could get many channels, some of which could come with explicit corporate sponsorship (my kids would probably like a Disney/NickJr station). But don't hold your breath.
Posted by: nerdbert at February 10, 2006 01:15 PMThe Logical Husband (who worked in radio in college)said it best....
"Payola in Radio...when did it ever go away???"
Posted by: The Lady Logician at February 10, 2006 01:43 PMIsn't the Mayor always looking for a "taste"?
Posted by: Kermit at February 10, 2006 01:47 PMAwwwright, I take it back, you probably don't drink Bud, and probably don't listen to ClearChannel too much. But do you only turn left?
You are right about the payola, I guess. Would be no need for the term with a totally free market.
Gov. needs to gtfo. It's been mismanaging this public resource for too long.
Microstations I agree with. The one big Sirius/XM just sounds like a ClearChannel monopoly dream to me. Wouldn't want a one company umbrella.
Posted by: jackscrow at February 10, 2006 01:55 PMThere is not a damn thing wrong with Payola.
Other than the fact that it is currently illegal--which is wrong.
Radio plays are advertisements for CDs. Why should the radio station not get some dough for that?
The radio station still has to keep their listeners happy. If they take record company moolah to play crappy songs, no one will listen, the record company will stop paying and they have to turn into an All Mitch Berg format.
(shudder)
Posted by: JB at February 10, 2006 05:01 PMSorry, I may have been too glib about the Sirius/XM idea, as I meant employing similar digital technology to solve the spectrum scarcity problem. Technologically there's no reason you couldn't do an XM/Sirius style distribution. You'd just have to have the guts to face up to the media conglomerates and reallocate some spectrum, but with modern codecs and broadcast techniques you could really pack the airwaves with tons of stations, much like you get with Sirius/XM. FM radio was designed long, long ago and nobody would contemplate being that inefficient these days. That inefficiency is what gets you the artificial scarcity that government uses to justify its control.
(Don't bet on it changing, though. The FCC's a mess and has been for decades. Nobody familiar with its workings will call it agile, responsive, or innovative. In fact, it's been a big impediment to progress due to its regulatory legacy from Democratic times. It's been ironic that liberal loonies joined with big-business interests to drive Powell off the commission.)
Yeah, I do drink Bud, but not often. Sometimes you just aren't in the mood to be "challenged" by your beverage.
I don't do ClearChannel, or radio in general except for traffic (will they *ever* finish the Wakota bridge?!). It's mp3s of audio books for when I drive in general, or a very weird mix of classical, hard rock, progressive, and country, although it can be disconcerting to go from Bach to Blue Oyster Cult to Dwight Yoakum when I turn on shuffle play (and which is why, unlike Lileks, I'll never own an Apple Shuffle).
I don't turn "left" unless you mean libertarian. I'm for robust defense of the US, free markets, personal liberties, social conservatism, and minimal government, much as Reagan was. There was a time when much of that could fall in the Democratic party, but not now.
Posted by: nerdbert at February 10, 2006 05:20 PMAn all Mitch Berg format? Happy 5th birthday Patriot Radio!
Posted by: Kermit at February 10, 2006 05:53 PM> An all Mitch Berg format?
I think they already have that at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Until Sen. Durbin finds out about it, and has it stopped.
Posted by: RBMN at February 11, 2006 10:33 AMDick Durban has a seat warming for him at Air America. He'll be just as effective there as he is in D.C.
Posted by: Kermit at February 11, 2006 01:51 PMNerbert,
Repeat after me YOAKAM, YOAKAM, YOAKAM.
Sorry, pet peeve with the 'UM spelling.
Posted by: JB Doubtless at February 13, 2006 11:09 AMYoakam must be a stage-name...
Posted by: Stridsvagn at February 13, 2006 11:18 AM