coyote Posted May 30, 2001 Share Posted May 30, 2001 "Airplay does sell records." - the Lefsetz Letter, as quoted by Anderton in another thread 1. If this true it implies that free distribution of the product increases sales of the product. Will the recording industry reconsider its assault on Napster in light of this? 2. If as a station owner I am facilitating a sale, am I not entitled to a cut? In this light is payola so friggin' evil as everyone makes it out to be? And do politicians, who routinely accept payola (otherwise called "campaign contributions") have ANY moral foundation to tell radio stations it's wrong? I used to think I was Libertarian. Until I saw their platform; now I know I'm no more Libertarian than I am RepubliCrat or neoCON or Liberal or Socialist. This ain't no track meet; this is football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Flier Posted May 30, 2001 Share Posted May 30, 2001 Originally posted by coyote: "Airplay does sell records." - the Lefsetz Letter, as quoted by Anderton in another thread 1. If this true it implies that free distribution of the product increases sales of the product. Will the recording industry reconsider its assault on Napster in light of this? They should, but they won't. They believe people are using MP3's as a REPLACEMENT for CD's, rather than a promo for a CD. Some people are. Some people also tape stuff off the radio. Other people go ahead and buy the CD. 2. If as a station owner I am facilitating a sale, am I not entitled to a cut? In this light is payola so friggin' evil as everyone makes it out to be? Yes it is evil, and no you're not entitled to a cut. It's a symbiotic relationship: the music draws listener ratings which facilitate ad sales for your station, while the airplay facilitates sales of CD's. In neither case can individual sales be tracked. Radio station program directors and DJ's should be able to decide which musical cuts to promote, based on merit, not whether they are getting paid off to promote something. And do politicians, who routinely accept payola (otherwise called "campaign contributions") have ANY moral foundation to tell radio stations it's wrong? No, but who else is going to do it? Two wrongs don't make a right. Should we just let the radio stations slide because the politicians who make the laws against payola are themselves corrupt? Sorry but I don't follow ya here... --Lee This message has been edited by Lee Flier on 05-30-2001 at 03:55 PM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coyote Posted May 30, 2001 Author Share Posted May 30, 2001 Merit? What criteria are used to determine this supposed 'merit'? Frankly I have not seen anything approaching a 'meritocratic' system for assigning airplay. There is only subjective taste, and an FM program director's taste is probably questionable at best. And while I'm all for our common property - the airwaves - being used for public benefit, the current structure encourages profit. In that context it is almost bogus to NOT have people paying for their own airtime. Why should CocaCola be forced to pay for the exposure of TimeWarner product? If Warner does it directly we call it 'payola' and get up in arms.... it's no wonder we hear forty minutes of commercials to every eighteen minutes of program. A related aside: I also can't wait for Congress to waste more time investigating whether "Survivor" was fixed. Yep, payola investigations are such a valid expenditure of taxpayer resources.... Originally posted by Lee Flier: Radio station program directors and DJ's should be able to decide which musical cuts to promote, based on merit, not whether they are getting paid off to promote something. No, but who else is going to do it? Two wrongs don't make a right. Should we just let the radio stations slide because the politicians who make the laws against payola are themselves corrupt? Sorry but I don't follow ya here... --Lee I used to think I was Libertarian. Until I saw their platform; now I know I'm no more Libertarian than I am RepubliCrat or neoCON or Liberal or Socialist. This ain't no track meet; this is football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anderton Posted May 30, 2001 Share Posted May 30, 2001 >>If as a station owner I am facilitating a sale, am I not entitled to a cut? << But you don't have to pay for records. A movie theater, for example, has to rent films, which allows them to charge admission. Your advertisers cover the costs of running the station; your content is free. Craig Anderton Educational site: http://www.craiganderton.org Music: http://www.youtube.com/thecraiganderton Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/craig_anderton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Flier Posted May 30, 2001 Share Posted May 30, 2001 Originally posted by coyote: Merit? What criteria are used to determine this supposed 'merit'? Frankly I have not seen anything approaching a 'meritocratic' system for assigning airplay. There is only subjective taste, and an FM program director's taste is probably questionable at best. There was definitely a time (say, during the "AOR" format days of the 70's, and even during the 80's) when DJ's and program directors had far more control over what was played. Some college stations are still that way. Yes, it's subjective because it's somebody's taste. That's OK with me. There is no such thing as a perfect system but I would rather have a "relationship" with a DJ where I learn to trust his taste and trust that he will discover new music that I like. This HAS happened, ya know. And while I'm all for our common property - the airwaves - being used for public benefit, the current structure encourages profit. In that context it is almost bogus to NOT have people paying for their own airtime. Why should CocaCola be forced to pay for the exposure of TimeWarner product? If Warner does it directly we call it 'payola' and get up in arms.... Huh? First of all how does Coke pay for the exposure of Time Warner? I'm not following you there. Second, if everybody has to compete to pay money for airtime, then nobody will ever be heard except those who have lots of money. Kinda like nobody gets elected to public office without a pile of money being thrown at them (and NOT for the public good). But that's OK because it "encourages profit", right? I'm confused. --Lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mats Olsson. Posted May 30, 2001 Share Posted May 30, 2001 Radio stations are selling listeners to the advertisers! More listeners = more profit. /Mats http://www.lexam.net/peter/carnut/man.gif What do we want? Procrastination! When do we want it? Later! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coyote Posted May 30, 2001 Author Share Posted May 30, 2001 Don't be too confused Lee, I'm merely playing devil's advocate a bit. I happen to agree w/ your position, but I find it helps me think more clearly when I question my own beliefs. So onward... If Coke buys airtime, they are paying for the station's operating expenses + station profit. Those expenses are expended on facilities which are utilized to broadcast TimeWarner product, thereby generating sales for TimeWarner. as well as Coke. I don't know if I'm explaining it clearly... Originally posted by Lee Flier: Huh? First of all how does Coke pay for the exposure of Time Warner? I'm not following you there. Isn't that pretty much what happens now? Unless a station programs a "Homegrown" hour or the like, we get only product w/ massive marketing muscle behind it. Second, if everybody has to compete to pay money for airtime, then nobody will ever be heard except those who have lots of money. I'm confused. --Lee I used to think I was Libertarian. Until I saw their platform; now I know I'm no more Libertarian than I am RepubliCrat or neoCON or Liberal or Socialist. This ain't no track meet; this is football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Flier Posted May 30, 2001 Share Posted May 30, 2001 >>Don't be too confused Lee, I'm merely playing devil's advocate a bit.<< OK. I have a head full of cold medicine, so don't mind me if I have trouble comprehending anything. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif >>If Coke buys airtime, they are paying for the station's operating expenses + station profit. Those expenses are expended on facilities which are utilized to broadcast TimeWarner product, thereby generating sales for TimeWarner. as well as Coke. I don't know if I'm explaining it clearly...<< Yeah, you are (I think), but the thing is that if it weren't for Time Warner's product (the records), nobody would listen to the radio. I mean nobody would turn on the radio if there were nothing BUT ads. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif So Time Warner's investment is getting people to turn on the radio which causes them to listen to Coke's ads and buy their products, as well as the reverse. That's what I meant by a symbiotic relationship. >>Isn't that pretty much what happens now? Unless a station programs a "Homegrown" hour or the like, we get only product w/ massive marketing muscle behind it. << Yes, but in theory, if payola were truly done away with, and knowledgeable individuals could be hired at radio stations, there would be more opportunity for more music to be heard. --Lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.