If I understand correctly, Payola is when a record company pays money to the station or DJ’s to play their company’s records(as opposed to the “acceptable” way of sponsors buying commercial time and the station playing whatever it wants).
My question is: Why is this a bad thing? Why can’t Britney’s or Backstreet Boys’(or whatever is popular) record company just buy a radio station and devote it exclusively to their own artists?
Lord knows, the market is there!
The few people I’ve asked this question blather about how it would “Ruin the integrity of radio” or some such nonsense.
Who’s kidding who here?
I know the FCC has rules about such things, but why are those rules necessary? Who does it hurt?
There’s nothing wrong with payola if you are willing to equate wealth with aesthetic sensibility. The airwaves are supposedly held as a public trust for all of us, not just those with the money to buy 24 hour barbershop marathons. Allowing wealthy companies to buy up all the air time is an abuse of a common resource.
That doesn’t sound right. Wealthy companies have already “bought the airwaves.” Four companies control over 80% of all radio advertising revenues. One of those companies has a record label.
So why those wealthy companies instead of wealthy record companies or music promoters or whoever? Does someone have a legislative history?
As I recall the discussion on payola laws, they focus on disclosure: the station is perfectly free to accept money for playing songs, as long as they disclose that financial arrangement to their listeners.
Well, I know a local small town FM station here that would gladly take some cases of beer and money if you want to have them play whatever you want them to. No, I don’t work for them. Just rumors…
Payola is still illegal in the FCC laws. There are several ways that a station can still get money for playing a song. They can either take a time buy sells them commercials(which advertises the new artist) or they can buy the station some give aways t-shirts, koozies etc withe the record label on it. This of course is never agreed upon in the same conversation with the label it is usually two.
One talking about the song the next call talking about the money.
I don’t see anything wrong with payola. I don’t know why it is illegal either.
As someone has pointed out, payola is alive, well, practiced all the time, and technically legal. In fact, there are independant promoters who are basically money launderers for the record companies.
You want to know what’s wrong with payola? Turn on your radio and listen right now.
Sure I could do a lot without a wealthy corporation, except that the FCC wont let me broadcast because they’ve ceded my rights to use the airwaves to one of these wealthy corporations. In return for that I expect to hear some quality music. If they fail in that trust, as some think they have, there’s no legitimate basis for FCC restrictions on private broadcasts. So if you want payola, I’ll be happy to take that 98.1 band, along with any others I want, and don’t you go whining to the Feds that my puny transmitters are blocking your signals in all the most lucrative markets.
Ah, another chance to show off my former career in radio.
The FCC doesn’t care if payola is immoral or unethical. It’s illegal because it hides the relationship between the “sponsor” and the radio station.
Look at it this way. Radio DJ reads a commercial for Joe’s drive in. You know it’s a commercial, you accept or reject it accordingly.
Now radio DJ mentions that he ate at Sam’s drive in and had a great meal. Wow, you think, a personal endorsement, and accept or reject it accordingly.
If radio DJ then plays a song, you’re conditioned to think it’s being played because the radio station thinks it’s worthy, not because a record promoter paid them to do it.
Sure you can get plugs by sending donuts to the morning zoo team. An ethical morning zoo team will then thank you on the air so the listeners know where the plug came from. But the principal is always the same – the radio station has to disclose when it’s a quid pro quo, rather than doing it by its own choice.