Chicagoist: Interview: MusicFIRST Coalition. Should Radio Have to Buy the Cow When They've Always Gotten the Artists' Milk For Free?

Ali Trachta

Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:33:50 -0600

fmdj, Just want to mention that this move was suggested 20 years ago. By Frank Sinatra.

fmdj

Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:21:00 -0600

I'm shocked at how one-sided this article is. It's interesting that not that many years ago record labels, music stores, and yes, amazingly enough, even recording artists were paying radio stations to play their songs. Why? Because they knew that it would get their record to sell, which would, in turn, make them more money. In fact, it was so bad, the government had to shut it down. They called it "payola" Had someone suggested this latest move to most recording artists 20 years ago, they would have laughed in your face. They knew not to bite the hand that fed them. But now that record sales are dropping rapidly, the industry is scrambling for new ways to make money. Never mind that they still make money when people buy their albums, no matter how long ago the album was recorded (which is why the TV analogy used in the article ia a poor one). Never mind that radio commercial sales have also been flat or declining for the last few years, meaning that radio is also making less money. Never mind that the recording industry still spends hundreds of millions of dollars to promote their artists to radio stations each year. All I can say is that radio needs to wise up, stop playing the overrated and over-played artists, and start striking deals with smaller labels that won't force these inane fees to play their music. I can tell you that those artists will profit from it much more than any "working class" artists will if and after these fees are enforced. (BTW, knowing and having known "working class" artists for several years, I can tell you that most are against this and they also can attest that they get very little if anything for their song writing credits if they are not a top played artist on multiple radio stations across the country, even with SESAC/ASCAP/BMI fees in place.)

alant

Thu, 04 Sep 2008 01:59:07 -0600

It's a bit misleading here not to list John Simson as a member of musicFIRST. He's, like, a founding member - and his organization, SoundExchange, was started with $9m in RIAA money, much like musicFIRST. Only MF is a couple of digits smaller, but the distinction is academic. It's also pretty remiss here to not note how poorly the powers that be - mainly SoundExchange - actually pay the people they collect monies for. So to hear them argue here for the right to collect even more money - and they're angling hard for this, even though they wind up keeping about %40 of what they take in - makes one want to weep. Google: "SoundExchange royalty forefiture" or "SoundExchange missing artists lists" if you'd like a clearer picture of what is actually going on. And while we're at it - since you used a photo of Lyle Lovett here, why not read about how Lyle can sell 4.6m albums and not see a profit. Why? Because it's the same corrupt system. See: http://blog.wired.com/music/2008/07/lyle-lovett-nev.html for more.

BrandonC

Thu, 04 Sep 2008 00:14:56 -0600

I support you're efforts, but If you want to be paid like the songwriters, then be paid like them. 1 - 2% of revenues is the going rate. You're price gouging rates, otherwise known as "fair" rates, you got for Internet aren't going to fly in the terrestrial broadcasting world. Remember..."The songwriters are richer than God"...and they got some of that wealth from 1 - 2% royalty rates, among other things, not just royalties. Get what you deserve, but please be fair about it.

Radio worker

Wed, 03 Sep 2008 21:58:15 -0600

Ms. Peacock Is wrong about this bill not having harmful effects on public radio or college radio. Under the current bill, non comm and college stations will have to pay a fee and worse yet, the record keeping will require these stations to hire additional staff to keep track of the complicated records imposed by this legislation. Who will represent the aritsts? Some collection of groups supposedly. But what about the artists that don't belong to these groups? Will non comm stations be obligated to cut them a check? How will records be reported and to who? Worse, If a DJ wants slip his friend the performer a few cents, he'll spin his record more. Records just won't be judged fairly. Eltona and Celine may make millions off this, but indie acts who depend on public radio will get pennies, stations will have huge headaches and in the end Ms. Peacock will be no better off than she is now.

Prescott Carlson

Wed, 03 Sep 2008 15:03:00 -0600

Gotcha, thanks. MusicFIRST's message was a bit cloudy (to me, anyway) because a lot of their language implies that terrestrial radio plays songs at zero cost whatsoever like when they state "it’s free content for the radio station." Very interesting debate. Guess the moral of the story is don't let Diane Warren write your songs, kids!

Ali Trachta

Wed, 03 Sep 2008 14:40:29 -0600

Prescott- Songwriters do get paid, but performing artists do not. It's the National Association of Broadcasters that MusicFIRST reps need to negotiate with. Apparently the N.A.B. leaders have stated they would rather (and I'm drawing from my interview sources here) "slit their throats" than negotiate with recording artists.

YoknapatawphaTourismBoard

Wed, 03 Sep 2008 14:26:43 -0600

It's these fees that have Pandora on the ropes. Sure ClearChannel can afford them, but not most start ups. The demand for, say, a weekly hour of gothic country ska is probably not sufficient to pay the requisite fees, but the undoubtedly rabid (fictional) audience for this (fictional, I think) music style can't be served any other way. And isn't being served by radio anyway. Kill the fees. Also, the ASCAP/BMI royalties that a small independent artist is going to get from such legislation is going to be miniscule... I wonder how much play one would have to get to recoupe $2400 in studio and mastering costs. Remember that you've got it kind of backwards when you say, "For you, once shooting wrapped, so did your paycheck. Though the show plays over and over again on TV and the scenes have turned into classics, you never see another royal cent. Most signed artists leave the studio indebted to their labels. (And, let's be honest, most unsigned artists leave the studio indebted to MasterCard or mom and dad or Sallie Mae or all of the above.) Free publicity through niche, small time communications outfits is the only way to keep your head above water.

Prescott Carlson

Wed, 03 Sep 2008 14:21:09 -0600

I'm confused -- I thought radio stations paid ASCAP/BMI big fees, then those entities pass the money on to the songwriters. So then the stations aren't exactly getting their content for "free". I would think the performers have the bigger beef with ASCAP/BMI and their policies for splitting up the $$$. Is that not the case any more?

Ali Trachta

Wed, 03 Sep 2008 14:01:20 -0600

Ward Up- I learned a lot during this process as well. One issue broadcasters take with this is that having to pay out artists will become very expensive, and they won't be able to afford to play music anymore. They'll have to all become talk radio. The response from supports of this legislation is essentially, "Good luck with that." In other words, the demand for music will still be there, so it would be in the best interest of radio to continue to supply it. Also, note that broadcasters would be paying approximately 3-5% of their profits. With television it can sometimes be up to 40%. Typical pay out in other countries is 3-5%.

Ward Up

Wed, 03 Sep 2008 13:46:55 -0600

Younger artists, including those who haven't "made it" yet, should be careful what they wish for. If a rule for these royalties gets mandated, then it seems that radio stations will have a huge disincentive to play new (or old) works. Do artists really want that disincentive in effect? I don't know. I am just asking. Also, while I learned a lot from the above article, I am curious to hear the side of the radio industry about this issue.

PumaConcolor

Wed, 03 Sep 2008 13:45:10 -0600

I don't want to give performers incentives to record more terrible cover versions of popular songs.

ophmarketing

Wed, 03 Sep 2008 13:40:13 -0600

For you, once shooting wrapped, so did your paycheck. Though the show plays over and over again on TV and the scenes have turned into classics, you never see another royal cent. Actually, that's pretty much how it went on TV until fairly recently. Unless you were the main star of the show, your paycheck DID end once shooting wrapped. Why do you think Sally "Gloria Bunker" Struthers" does all of those cheesy "become a TV repairman and/or feed the starving orphans" commercials? Oh, and also, it's champing at the bit, not chomping.