• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Another Word For “Payola”?

T

Tilden

Guest
When large advertisers or major sports team owners control the content of a broadcast with threats to withdraw advertising dollars or programming if topics are discussed...or not discussed is that not just the other side of “Payola”?
 
Tilden said:
When large advertisers or major sports team owners control the content of a broadcast with threats to withdraw advertising dollars or programming if topics are discussed...or not discussed is that not just the other side of “Payola”?
Click to expand...

No. It's commercial radio. Advertisers have always had that power. Even back in the days when Bufferin was sponsoring radio shows!
 
What makes something payola is if it's done secretly. For example, I can take money from a record label to play one of their songs, but I have to be clear why it's being done. Full disclosure. When a radio station does business with advertisers or sports teams, you will usually find a disclaimer somewhere. It may not be obvious. It may not be continuous. All that has to happen is the station acknowledge that what you're hearing was paid for.
 
All sounds like you are confirming that Payola still exists.
 
Tilden said:
All sounds like you are confirming that Payola still exists.
Click to expand...

A sponsorship is not illegal and is not payola.

Payola exists when someone benefits personally from broadcasting something without the knowledge or consent of ownership / management.

If the station owner benefits, it's a normal business transaction. FCC rules on sponsor identification must be observed, but otherwise there is neither payola nor plugola.

Advertisers have the right to pick the platform where they spend money. If they don't feel comfortable with a certain station, under most circumstances they have the right to put their advertising elsewhere. The exceptions are where an advertiser discriminates through ad buys, such as a "No Black" or "No Hispanic" dictate, but that is a special situation. "No talk" or "No controversy" is a legitimate client dictate.

And most of us would check with our FCC Counsel if we had any doubts.
 
Tilden said:
All sounds like you are confirming that Payola still exists.
Click to expand...

It sounds to me like you've created your own definition of payola, and then twisted certain things to fit your definition.

Because the things you're mentioning don't fit the accepted definition of payola.
 
Tilden said:
When large advertisers or major sports team owners control the content of a broadcast with threats to withdraw advertising dollars or programming if topics are discussed...or not discussed
Click to expand...

No, an advertiser has every right not to spend money to place his brand/product in a environment he sees as detrimental to his business. That's just common sense.

IN return, the station is free to program their station to be attractive to the most advertisers.
 
When you sell your credibility for a buck that is a form of Payola.
 
Tilden said:
When you sell your credibility for a buck that is a form of Payola.
Click to expand...


Payola is a legal term with a precised definition. What you describe is not payola
 
Tilden said:
When you sell your credibility for a buck that is a form of Payola.
Click to expand...

That's called "running for office," which is not the discussion here. :D

Since when does an advertiser not have the right to buy time on whatever station it pleases, so long as no racial, etc. discrimination is intended? Broadcasters also have the right to refuse to sell to advertisers who would harm the reputation of the station in some way, AFAIK. Political ads, I think, are an exception.
 
KeithE4 said:
Since when does an advertiser not have the right to buy time on whatever station it pleases, so long as no racial, etc. discrimination is intended? .
Click to expand...

So suppose that in a market in which one company owns the CHR, country, right-wing talk and hip-hop stations and offers an attractive rate to advertisers who buy all four -- less than the cost of buying three of them separately -- that an advertiser (or agency) can't ask that very little or none of the advertising be placed on the hip-hop station? Is that racial bias? How about none on the right-wing talker? Bias there, too?
 
CTListener said:
Is that racial bias? How about none on the right-wing talker? Bias there, too?
Click to expand...

The courts have ruled that advertisers have the right to choose where their advertising is placed. The decisions are often based on demographics and research.

There is a major advertiser ban now on talk radio. It goes back to the Rush Limbaugh incident. But it applies to ALL controversial programming, not just a certain point of view.
 
A business owner can advertise on whatever station they want to. Before retiring friends of mine owned a night club. They were a Country themed night club, so they advertised on the Country radio station. When i-Heart launched the new FM sports station in the market (replacing an AM) they offered them the sports station for a few bucks more, but they turned them down. For a while they had live bands - not just country bands. Whenever they had a rock band perform they advertised on the rock station. Of course that in itself caused problems for those who weren't aware they weren't targeting Country music fans with people questioning online "Why is this redneck place advertising on this rock station." They also experimented for a while with TOP 40 music and on Facebook they were promoting the club on Facebook Pages for the Top 40, Hip-Hop, and Spanish CHR stations.
 
gr8oldies said:
"No Urban/No Spanish" dictates are illegal. "No talk show" dictates are not. As part of license renewal applications, stations have to certify that they have not accepted any agency buys with those dictates.
Click to expand...

But if the advertiser feels the product or service or event being advertised would be unlikely to find much demand in the audience of a station with a hip-hop or Spanish CHR format, why should the advertiser or agency representing the advertiser not have the freedom to tell the local radio cluster -- Hartford's Entercom, for example -- "Don't run this on WZMX" (urban) when apparently it can tell iHeart "Don't run this on WPOP" (right-wing talk)? Or is it just the racially/ethnically charged labels "urban" and "Spanish" that are forbidden? Can an advertiser/agency specify "No talk" but not "No white" for advertising that targets minority listeners?
 
My understanding is the racial and ethnic categories are what is the problem. If you're buying 25-34, you can't exclude the Urban station. (Facebook is having their own controversy with their self-service ad tool; real estate agencies excluding minorities from its targeting). David can probably give a better explanation than I can.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom