Talk:Payola/Archives/2012

Foo

Payola leads to smaller artists, poorer record companies and broke but talented producers being unable to get radio play. It is a shame that the same records and record companies continue to control the airwaves due to illegal payola acts! What's just as disgusting is that the airwaves are supposed to be PUBLIC owned, yet radio stations and billion dollar conglomerates continue to make money off the public airwaves while charging struggling artists money to get on the very air that the public owns. What a travesty. The FCC is sleeping on the job. Or does the FCC work for the conglomerates and not the people? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.19.68.49 (talk • contribs) .

I think you answered your own question there with that last one. Rummy

Dropping Globalise template

This is an article about an American business practice in the American music industry. There is nothing in here (and no necessary evidence) to suggest justification for the globalise template. I'm thus dropping it, because there is no need for it, until someone can explain otherwise. Brokenwit 04:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Payola might be in existence in other countries, but it has not received the publicity that the practice has in the US; therefore it would be really difficult to find sources for a "globalized" article. SoundStone 08:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

When?

What is the timeframe of payola? The Alan Freed article mentions the scandal as being in the 60's, but when did payola start, when did it end - if it has ended? The article does not address these questions. Kevs 04:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the History section of this entry really needs some work!

Legality of payola ?

Has payola always been illegal in the USA. IIRC in Freed's time it was not actually illegal (as long as the payments were disclosed to the IRS) but widely considered to be unethical. 80.229.222.48 09:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Drugola

How about a section on the exchange of "gifts" (other than money) or drugs to radio station staff for airplay. 80.229.222.48 09:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is Payola Illegal?

I just read this article after coming across the topic in an economics class. I notice that there is no explicit description of why the practice is illegal or who is is alleged to harm. There are a couple references to musicians not getting the play that they paid for. This would seem to fall into the general category of breach of contract (and would thus be enforcable by standard contract law without a particular law against Payola). The question then becomes, assuming the contract is properly honored by both parties, who is being harmed by Payola? If it's the listners, couldn't they switch to another radio station if they don't like it? In fact, listners may prefer to listen to Payola-involved stations as they could have a chance to hear new music. What about markets where there are no laws against Payola - perhaps other countries or emerging new technologies. I don't know how Apple picks the bands it places most prominently on iTunes but if it receives payment, would this not constitute the same sort of action? Are listeners of iTunes damaged? If so, isn't their decision to use (or not use) iTunes a more accurate economic signal to Apple than a rigid and aribtrary law? Lawlorg 16:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Economic models tend to assume perfect information on both sides of a transaction. A form of payola is still legal in the United States: according to the article, I can buy 3 minutes of ad time on a radio station and play a song, as long as I say "Paid for by Damian Yerrick". But if the listeners are not told that a given song is an ad and not a spin, this introduces an information asymmetry that can distort listeners' perception of the song. And no, there's often no close substitute to payola within the AM and FM bands because of the limited amount of government-granted spectrum that common receivers can receive and the high cost difference between AM/FM receivers and, say, cellular Internet radio receivers. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 02:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

In answer to your last question, online record stores charge fees to record companies to get their records up front. This is perfectly legal. The same is true of physical stores, such as Best buy and Wal-Mart, who also ask for fees (as high as $50,000.00) in order to get good placement for CDs and DVDs. This is also legal. (Tower Records, on the other hand, never accepted this kind of "payola" in its hey day, but of course, Tower was driven out of business by falling CD sales.) ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 11:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The illegality of Payola is simple. Payola in itself is not illegal. It is when those payments (whether they be in the form of money, services, or gifts) go undeclared as income, and the taxes on those payments go unpaid. It's not complicated. It's the abuse of Payola that is illegal, just as with anything else. FredClem (talk) 08:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Payola is illegal under US law because it is thought to harm listeners. Listerner ares assumed to think that DJs select songs on the basis on their quality. Selecting songs on the basis of recieved payments is a breach of that trust and the US legislator has seen fit to outlaw that breach. It has nothing to do with declared or undeclared income whatsoever. Bokken | 木刀 21:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

What possible "harm" can it do to listeners? Quality of a song has nothing to do with it, as that is entirely subjective to the individual. If anything, "Popularity" would be the rule (as in Top 40 radio), and then only on radio that is formatted as such. There is nothing wrong with playing any record so long as it abides by the individual stations policy and format, and that the station abides by the rules of copyright and such. The audience has a choice of listening or not. The entire article is misleading in that it begins with making Payola an illegal action, which it is not by definition. It works the same way with advertising. Advertisers pay stations to run their ads, which are mainly focused on the demographic audience the station is trying to attract for the sake of those advertisements. If what you say is true, then advertising would be illegal as well. Radio is a business just like any other. It's in business to make money. When it crosses the line of accepting funds illegally (as in undeclared income), it crosses the line. FredClem (talk) 05:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where anyone would get the idea that "The entire article is misleading in that it begins with making Payola an illegal action, which it is not by definition." I don't think "making" or "by definition" (or even "payola") mean what FredClem seems to think they mean. So, to be clear: Broadcasting any programming over a radio station in the United States, in exchange for any valuable consideration, without announcing on the air who provided or paid for it, is a federal crime for which a person involved can get a year in prison and a $10,000 fine. That's not counting the rather large additional administrative fines ("forfeitures") the regulated stations and other participants face. And note that, except for section 317, the laws apply to almost any broadcast originator or cable program originator, not just a radio station, and the rules are not limited to music. See:

• 47 U.S.C. § 317, 47 U.S.C. § 508, and 47 CFR 73.1212
• Public Notice 88-175: "Commission Warns Licensees About Payola and Undisclosed Promotion"
• "Payola and Sponsorship Identification" on the FCC website, which discusses U.S. policy on payola, and links to a dozen examples of what happens to folks with self-serving ideas about what the public doesn't need to be told; for example:
  • All the statements from the FCC commissioners about payola and about CBS Radio, Citadel Broadcasting, Clear Channel Communications, and Entercom in FCC-07-42A1, in which Entercom got whacked for $4,000,000. Citadel got to cough up $2,000,000, CBS $3,000,000, and Clear Channel $3,500,000 on the same day. (In particular, note the opinion of commissioner Michael J. Copps: "Pay-for-play broadcasting cheats consumers, musicians and the law. It denies consumers choice in what they hear, it deprives musicians of the exposure they need to survive and it is illegal. [...] Payola by itself is bad enough.")
  • Univision Radio paid $1,000,000 to resolve its pay-for-play investigation. (DA-10-1722A1)
  • WJLA-TV 7 Washington DC agreed to a $21,000 forfeiture and stricter employee oversight to settle an investigation into soliciting payments from sponsors in exchange for segments in the station's news programs. (DA-10-1722A1: ACC Licensee, Inc., WJLA-TV, Washington, D.C.)
  • WBPH-TV and Sinclair Broadcasting got hit with fines for airing two different shows with Armstrong Williams, without disclosing that WBPH-TV was paid to air The Right Side with Armstrong Williams and without disclosing the fact that Williams, who had discussed No Child Left Behind during several shows, was also being paid by the U.S. Department of Education to do promo work for No Child Left Behind. (FCC-09-108A1, FCC-07-152A1: Sonshine Family Television, Inc., Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.)
  • Comcast got fined $16,000 for insering video news releases into its cable channel CN8, which isn't even an over-the-air broadcaster. (DA-07-4075A1)

As far as I know, none of these cases mention whether or not the financial arrangements were disclosed to the IRS. It's not about taxes; it's about the public knowing when they're hearing something issued by a sponsor. --Closeapple (talk) 09:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Payola the NZ based band?

Would anyone mind if I created a page for this band? They get quite a lot of airplay on NZ radio. Would the correct place be Payola (the band) or similar? Cheers, --Dan|^(talk) 19:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest Payola (band). QuinnHK (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, I'll band it up ;-) Just as soon as I get round to it :D Thanks again, --Dan|^(talk) 08:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Why "Pay-to-play" in the same article as "Payola"?

I think that the "Pay-to-play" section should not be here. After discussing so much about payola, readers may get the impression that pay-to-play is a bad thing. Maybe the original author thinks so, but I disagree. Open for discussion... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.104.0.80 (talk) 03:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

French article

Hello

The article on the French-speaking Wikipedia has been enriched with a review of the economic litterature on the subject. Since I translated large parts of the English article as a starting point, I thought it may be interesting to integrate that addition in the current article. Most (if not all) of the references of the French article are in English. Bokken | 木刀 09:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Inverted?

The line on examples of payola on GTA - Vice City says "an inverted payola scheme" where music pays the DJs. How is this inverted? Normally it's the music manager who pays the DJ, with cash from the musicians' budget. No inversion whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.249.202 (talk) 09:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It's somewhat different, in that the musician is apparently paying instead of the musician's record label, but that's not a fundamental distinction. It's certainly not an "inversion" of the usual scenario. Captain Quirk (talk) 03:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

"The Spirit of Radio"?

I'm wondering if "The Spirit of Radio" by the Canadian progressive-rock band Rush is at least partly about the practice of payola. The lyrics include the following lines:

...It's really just a question of your honesty, yeah your honesty

One likes to believe in the freedom of music

But glittering prizes and endless compromises

Shatter the illusion of integrity

[chorus]

For the words of the prophets were written on the studio wall

Concert hall

And echoes with the sounds of salesmen,

Of salesmen,

Of salesmen!

Sure seems like it to me. Anybody know if "payola" was the inspiration for this song? Captain Quirk (talk) 03:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)