A Second Price Increase from SiriusXM?

[TheBigA]

The fee is a percentage of revenue. So if revenue improves, the amount increases per subscriber. Revenue can be based on increases in subscriptions, advertising, or other sources. Potentially, if the company increases income, that could mean even higher royalty fees, which could hurt subscriptions more. That's what makes this kind of royalty, based on revenue, so regressive and so counter to the normal impulse of improving revenues.

 

[radioman148]

If music royalty rights continue to increase at some point isn't it counter productive for the rights owners to keep raising rates if people rebel?
Eventually people will just stop listening to outlets that play the music and just listen to what they have on their ipods.

 

[TheBigA]

If music royalty rights continue to increase at some point isn't it counter productive for the rights owners to keep raising rates if people rebel?

The people have already rebeled. They get their music for free, and satellite radio has stopped growing.

The copyright holders can't sue music lovers any more. It's too expensive and too time consuming. So they just hope to collect money from anyone with a tax address. That would be SiriusXM. They'd also like to charge ISPs and terrestrial radio.

And yes, at some point, the people they need to publicize their music will be broke. But at least the copyright owners can fly on private jets and live in nice houses. It's their content, and everyone else must pay. It's a very 20th century view of the world.

 

[radioman148]

If music royalty rights continue to increase at some point isn't it counter productive for the rights owners to keep raising rates if people rebel?

The people have already rebeled. They get their music for free, and satellite radio has stopped growing.

The copyright holders can't sue music lovers any more. It's too expensive and too time consuming. So they just hope to collect money from anyone with a tax address. That would be SiriusXM. They'd also like to charge ISPs and terrestrial radio.

And yes, at some point, the people they need to publicize their music will be broke. But at least the copyright owners can fly on private jets and live in nice houses. It's their content, and everyone else must pay. It's a very 20th century view of the world.

Yeah but aren't they cutting off their nose to spite their face?
Eventually their income stream will completely be gone. Wouldn't it be better to have something coming in than nothing at all?

 

[RadioLoverIL]

Yes.....for the longest time, radio stations and record companies had nice working relationship. Radio stations got ratings because of the music they played, which in turn meant good advertising revenue. At the same time, a song playing on a radio station was like free advertising for a record company, which in turn meant increased sales of singles and albums. A person heard a song on the radio, it would be, "That song is cool. I'm going to buy that album when it comes out."

But what's happened is people aren't buying albums (CDs) like they used to...so there isn't as much value to simply having songs playing on radio stations, because it's not leading to album sales. People hear a song now on the radio, it's, "I love that song....thankfully I don't have to buy the album....I can just find an internet site and download it for free to my computer and put it on my Ipod or MP3 player." So, the record companies are looking for avenues of revenue. It's basically come down to the record companies going with an attitude of "radio stations need us more than we need radio stations".....so now they want to charge anyone that plays music for public consumption.

 

[radioman148]

Yes.....for the longest time, radio stations and record companies had nice working relationship. Radio stations got ratings because of the music they played, which in turn meant good advertising revenue. At the same time, a song playing on a radio station was like free advertising for a record company, which in turn meant increased sales of singles and albums. A person heard a song on the radio, it would be, "That song is cool. I'm going to buy that album when it comes out."

But what's happened is people aren't buying albums (CDs) like they used to...so there isn't as much value to simply having songs playing on radio stations, because it's not leading to album sales. People hear a song now on the radio, it's, "I love that song....thankfully I don't have to buy the album....I can just find an internet site and download it for free to my computer and put it on my Ipod or MP3 player." So, the record companies are looking for avenues of revenue. It's basically come down to the record companies going with an attitude of "radio stations need us more than we need radio stations".....so now they want to charge anyone that plays music for public consumption.

No wonder there's more talk radio.

 

[Starbucks]

Yes.....for the longest time, radio stations and record companies had nice working relationship. Radio stations got ratings because of the music they played, which in turn meant good advertising revenue. At the same time, a song playing on a radio station was like free advertising for a record company, which in turn meant increased sales of singles and albums. A person heard a song on the radio, it would be, "That song is cool. I'm going to buy that album when it comes out."


That's part of the radio industry's fault....they wanted or rather play it safe for the advertisers, then being the first breaking in a new hit record. Whatever happened to Hitbound!
Of course they don't need radio stations, just like we don't need radio stations like we use to. You didn't take advantage of record service.... find, you'll pay for it. The record industry on their side was to charge consumers 20.00 a pop, for something that cost 10 cents to put music on, and you get maybe 2 good songs on there, so of course less sales. And the 5.00 CD single that had 3 or more different versions of the same song, or discontinuing the single so you were forced to buy the album didn't play fair for anyone.


But what's happened is people aren't buying albums (CDs) like they used to...so there isn't as much value to simply having songs playing on radio stations, because it's not leading to album sales. People hear a song now on the radio, it's, "I love that song....thankfully I don't have to buy the album....I can just find an internet site and download it for free to my computer and put it on my Ipod or MP3 player." So, the record companies are looking for avenues of revenue. It's basically come down to the record companies going with an attitude of "radio stations need us more than we need radio stations".....so now they want to charge anyone that plays music for public consumption.

 

[TheBigA]

That's part of the radio industry's fault....they wanted or rather play it safe for the advertisers, then being the first breaking in a new hit record. Whatever happened to Hitbound!

The advertisers don't care what music a radio station plays. So to "play it safe" isn't for the advertisers.

Radio plays it safe for the listeners, who can only absorb so much new music in a day. Playing lots of unfamiliar music drives away the listeners, and fewer listeners is bad for advertising.

 

[Starbucks]

You didn't quite get my point....I'm saying advertisers became the program directors for the stations of every mainstream format telling to target a certain age, sex , race no matter what music they played. The stations don't get care if Jason Mraz "I'm Yours" hangs on the current playlist for another 50 more weeks, as long as it targets the demographics. The listening audience will quietly will be sick and tired of it, but as long as advertisers keep advertising, who cares. That why these stations sound like they do.
Stations use to break 3 -5 new songs a week, not every 2 months in fragments , helping the music industry to sell records. They may be able to keep listening audience around for the office, which pleases advertisers, not record or music purchasers. now they have to pay if they continue to be no benefit to the music industry.

 

[TheBigA]

You didn't quite get my point....I'm saying advertisers became the program directors for the stations of every mainstream format telling to target a certain age, sex , race no matter what music they played. The stations don't get care if Jason Mraz "I'm Yours" hangs on the current playlist for another 50 more weeks, as long as it targets the demographics.

There are lots of songs that reach the same demographics. Not just one. The point with certain songs is that they don't burn. So they CAN last 50 weeks without killing off the audience. I don't know the figures on the song you mention, but I imagine the burn rate is pretty low. But as one who has sat behind a console, I can tell you that stations DO care about playing the same song over and over. No one listens to a station more than the people who work there. But if it attracts an audience, they do what they have to do.

I think it's important for music creators to recognize that advertisers want a certain demo, and those creators should make more music for that demo, so there are more songs available. There's no point in a record label creating music for fringe audiences when no one's playing it.

Stations use to break 3 -5 new songs a week, not every 2 months in fragments , helping the music industry to sell records. They may be able to keep listening audience around for the office, which pleases advertisers, not record or music purchasers. now they have to pay if they continue to be no benefit to the music industry.

Radio airplay has nothing to do with the fact that people aren't buying records. Radio airplay won't force people to buy music they don't like, or music that's viewed as overpriced. When a label releases a CD by an artist people like, and sell it at a good price, consumers buy it. Otherwise, they steal it.

When WABC was the most listened-to radio station in the nation, it broke ONE new song a week, as a "Pick Hit." Rick Sklar wrote about it in his book, "Rockin' America." He said the public only had attention for one unfamiliar song at a time. This was 40 years ago! Obviously CHRs move on music quicker than ACs.

Labels used to release new music by an artist more frequently. Then the cost of making records went up, so they decided to put out an album every two years. Plus rosters got too big due to consolidation. So that means it's not in anyone's best interest to burn through an album in a year. Keeping a song on a playlist for 50 weeks means the writers get rich, the album stays current, and the artist has more time to create the next project. I would suggest all that is to the benefit of the music industry.

 

[Starbucks]

There are lots of songs that reach the same demographics. Not just one. The point with certain songs is that they don't burn. So they CAN last 50 weeks without killing off the audience. I don't know the figures on the song you mention, but I imagine the burn rate is pretty low. But as one who has sat behind a console, I can tell you that stations DO care about playing the same song over and over. No one listens to a station more than the people who work there. But if it attracts an audience, they do what they have to do.


>>>Some of your facts or statements are semi-right. it's not the fact people get quick burn out with certain songs..(Free Bird,expl) the point is of this thread is selling and developing hit records. That's what the music industry wants out of terrestrial radio. radio has kept a tighter playlist, as long as they can sell to advertisers. It has attracted a declining audience....so if baseball this year has a declining attendance of 80%...there will still be a few first place teams, and a world series. And again the point is ...the record labels and radio stations are not hand in hand like they use to be.

When WABC was the most listened-to radio station in the nation, it broke ONE new song a week, as a "Pick Hit." Rick Sklar wrote about it in his book, "Rockin' America." He said the public only had attention for one unfamiliar song at a time. This was 40 years ago! Obviously CHRs move on music quicker than ACs.

>>>>There was a system stations like WABC,WLS use to work under...like a farm system, where the use to monitor what was happening in regional and close markets like Albany,Peoria, Rome, Utica, Syracuse, and other medium or smaller markets that were or has wider playlist, and getting or giving airplay to songs under the top 40, and as it developed record sales from airplay, the bigger markets would add it on or give it at least a plug. And the music industry was more then happy to see any hit developing not only as sales , but airplay. It was sell that single. now radio doesn't care to sell that single. That single or track they add, is to sell advertising. What's in it for the music Industry? Now Let's charge them.

Labels used to release new music by an artist more frequently. Then the cost of making records went up, so they decided to put out an album every two years. Plus rosters got too big due to consolidation. So that means it's not in anyone's best interest to burn through an album in a year. Keeping a song on a playlist for 50 weeks means the writers get rich, the album stays current, and the artist has more time to create the next project. I would suggest all that is to the benefit of the music industry.

>>>>true...they bought all the labels from small garages from the 50's recordings and so on...it's called control. And they dropped alot of developing or veteran artist that had at least a few years left in them. it was too costly to keep all of them just like it's too costly for Clear Channel too keep what they inherit. it became budgeting for both...because both got too big. And neither is profiting. It's like a long term successful marriage gone south.

Radio airplay has nothing to do with the fact that people aren't buying records. Radio airplay won't force people to buy music they don't like, or music that's viewed as overpriced. When a label releases a CD by an artist people like, and sell it at a good price, consumers buy it. Otherwise, they steal it.

>>>Again your right. That's why the RIAA wants too charge.

 

[TheBigA]

the point is of this thread is selling and developing hit records. That's what the music industry wants out of terrestrial radio.

Why is that radio's problem? Maybe the music industry should focus more on recording music that people want, instead of throwing spaghetti against a wall? In the old days, label rosters were small and focused. Now, it seems like anyone who walks in the door or wins a contest can get a label deal. That has cheapened the value of music, to the point where 99 cents is often too much. If you're going to talk about music on the radio, you need to begin with the music. If it sucks, there's not much radio can do, except play music from the period when the labels cared about what they did.

radio has kept a tighter playlist, as long as they can sell to advertisers. It has attracted a declining audience.

Give me examples where a larger playlist has led to a larger audience. The reason the playlist is tight is to attract LISTENERS, not advertisers. That was the theory behind Top 40. People tend to like the same familiar songs over and over. That system has worked well for 60 years. So the idea that tight playlists has attracted a declining audience is hogwash. If it wasn't for tight playlists, no one would listen. And it goes back to the quality of the music being made. Quality, not quantity. It's not the number of songs you break, but the ability of them to stand the test of time, and become recurrents. That's where the REAL money is made, and where the real CAREERS are defined.

I worked at a classical radio station once. We thought classical listeners hated the old war horses. We were wrong. They love Beethovan and Mozart. They hate modern classical music. And they hate to hear complete works. Just give them the familiar passeges. I'm not kidding. And we were a public station, not commercial. So it's not driven by advertisers.

And again the point is ...the record labels and radio stations are not hand in hand like they use to be.

Oh well. Radio is owned by American companies, and the labels are owned by foreigners. Back in the old days, the major labels were owned by media companies like CBS, ABC, MCA, and RCA. So there was a close relationship between media and music. Now there's only one label owned by a media company: Disney. They seem to be having success with the Jonas Brothers and Miley Cyrus. Maybe the Europeans could learn something.

>>>>There was a system stations like WABC,WLS use to work under...like a farm system, where the use to monitor what was happening in regional and close markets

That's not what Rick Sklar says. You should read his book.

It was sell that single. now radio doesn't care to sell that single. That single or track they add, is to sell advertising. What's in it for the music Industry? Now Let's charge them.

First of all, why this obsession with selling advertising? I sell advertising, and I can tell you that music doesn't sell advertising. AUDIENCE sells advertising. Radio doesn't sell music, but audience.

Fifteen years ago, the foreign labels stopped servicing music to smaller markets. They fired their local radio promotion staffs. They stopped taking artists on radio tours. The foreign owners didn't understand why the labels spent all this money on small markets. The labels destroyed radio's farm system by focusing on the major markets and trade reporters, and leaving the smaller stations to fend for themselves.

>>>Again your right. That's why the RIAA wants too charge.

The RIAA wants to charge them because the Europeans, who already cut service to small markets, and have raped internet broadcasters with larger playlists, want Americans to operate under foreign laws. They don't know anything about music or American taste, they sue single mothers and college kids, alienating consumers, and they haven't adapted to new technologies. So they want to charge anyone with a tax address because they've lost control of their real customers. And they don't understand by charging radio, they will move further and further away from the REAL people who control the culture in this country: The audience.

 

[Starbucks]

Why is that radio's problem? Maybe the music industry should focus more on recording music that people want, instead of throwing spaghetti against a wall? In the old days, label rosters were small and focused. Now, it seems like anyone who walks in the door or wins a contest can get a label deal. That has cheapened the value of music, to the point where 99 cents is often too much. If you're going to talk about music on the radio, you need to begin with the music. If it sucks, there's not much radio can do, except play music from the period when the labels cared about what they did.

>>>>Never said it was all Radio's problem. again your right, but what's missing is good music directors and programmers seeking and breaking good artist and songs. and yes , product was declining since the late 80's. I'm sure there's a good band or artist somewhere around. Good luck getting played on the radio. they won't play the latest from Guns n' Roses, or Springstein.

Give me examples where a larger playlist has led to a larger audience. The reason the playlist is tight is to attract LISTENERS, not advertisers. That was the theory behind Top 40. People tend to like the same familiar songs over and over. That system has worked well for 60 years. So the idea that tight playlists has attracted a declining audience is hogwash. If it wasn't for tight playlists, no one would listen. And it goes back to the quality of the music being made. Quality, not quantity. It's not the number of songs you break, but the ability of them to stand the test of time, and become recurrents. That's where the REAL money is made, and where the real CAREERS are defined.

>>>Again your missing the point, and the point is why the RIAA wants to charge. Yes I like to hear the same songs over and over, but not for 49 weeks. Stations didn't do that in the 80's and before. it was always kept fresh in some way as far as currents go. and the ability to test the time is testing people to go elsewhere.

I worked at a classical radio station once. We thought classical listeners hated the old war horses. We were wrong. They love Beethovan and Mozart. They hate modern classical music. And they hate to hear complete works.

>>>Classical has nothing to with this. That's whole different world. You want to talk Polka formats?

Oh well. Radio is owned by American companies, and the labels are owned by foreigners. Back in the old days, the major labels were owned by media companies like CBS, ABC, MCA, and RCA. So there was a close relationship between media and music. Now there's only one label owned by a media company: Disney. They seem to be having success with the Jonas Brothers and Miley Cyrus. Maybe the Europeans could learn something.

.......Back in the old days , there were Vee-jay, Big top, 20th Century, Warner Brothers before they became a corporate giant, and owners like Ahmet Ertegun, and Hy Weiss, that started out of a car trunk, and still manage to get their singles at the time on the national charts. How can you compare Disney today when there is not much competition. disney practically owns everything beside Sony. Especially when the Indies can't get played on the Clear Channels. Bad analogy.

That's not what Rick Sklar says. You should read his book.

>>>With respect to Rick Sklar, WABC just didn't add one song a week....it's impossible during their 22 year tenure. divide that by the weeks, and you have an all time 500 song playlist. he might have added 1 song a week while he was programming it, but it doesn't add up with their complete chart history. Plus it's New York, and yes they can have the tightest playlist in the country and they did, but it still wasn't the same current songs for 49 weeks like we have had the past 15 years.

First of all, why this obsession with selling advertising? I sell advertising, and I can tell you that music doesn't sell advertising. AUDIENCE sells advertising. Radio doesn't sell music, but audience.
Fifteen years ago, the foreign labels stopped servicing music to smaller markets. They fired their local radio promotion staffs. They stopped taking artists on radio tours. The foreign owners didn't understand why the labels spent all this money on small markets. The labels destroyed radio's farm system by focusing on the major markets and trade reporters, and leaving the smaller stations to fend for themselves.

>>>But they need all of those, but there not getting all of it as far as music and ratings.. As far as foreign record labels,what does have to do with American record service to american radio stations. yes they were cutting budgets, because by the mid 90's , current sales were showing concerning declining sales for current music. especially the single. Catalog was 50% of the sales of people rebuying their record collections in CD's. plus these record clubs were now getting affordable getting by the 20.00 CD syndrome.


The RIAA wants to charge them because the Europeans, who already cut service to small markets, and have raped internet broadcasters with larger playlists, want Americans to operate under foreign laws. They don't know anything about music or American taste, they sue single mothers and college kids, alienating consumers, and they haven't adapted to new technologies. So they want to charge anyone with a tax address because they've lost control of their real customers. And they don't understand by charging radio, they will move further and further away from the REAL people who control the culture in this country: The audience.

>>>>>..I'm not gonna argue with you on that. First of all, you act like I'm on the side of the RIAA, which is completely untrue. I'm thinking of finally calling it quits with XM for so many years after i got noticed for passing the royaltie fee to me. F- that. I'm just telling you why their passing a fee to everybody with everything. Radio has become worthless to them.

 

[TheBigA]

I'm sure there's a good band or artist somewhere around. Good luck getting played on the radio. they won't play the latest from Guns n' Roses, or Springstein.

Who is promoting Springsteen these days? No one. The labels stopped promoting music at radio a long time ago. Older artists milk their existing fan base. New artists don't know how to build one. Artist development is a thing of the past. Not radio's problem. And it didn't start yesterday.

>>>Again your missing the point, and the point is why the RIAA wants to charge. Yes I like to hear the same songs over and over, but not for 49 weeks. Stations didn't do that in the 80's and before. it was always kept fresh in some way as far as currents go. and the ability to test the time is testing people to go elsewhere.

Not true. I can give you examples of radio playing songs for 49 weeks. You Light Up My Life. 1977. But once again, you seem to be talking about certain formats.

How can you compare Disney today when there is not much competition. disney practically owns everything beside Sony. Especially when the Indies can't get played on the Clear Channels. Bad analogy.

First of all, CC plays indies. So that's a lie.

Second of all, most of the indies you mention were gobbled up by majors, and basically killed the small local label business in the 1970s. Label consolidation pre-dates media consolidation by 20 years. You make your bed, you lie in it. My point is that what hurt the relationship between radio and records was when the labels were sold to foreign companies. You can date the end of investment in promotion to the late 80s, early 90s. Foreign companies don't believe in radio promotion. They see radio airplay as a right. It isn't. Not here, anyway.

I'm just telling you why their passing a fee to everybody with everything. Radio has become worthless to them.

It's become worthless to them because they stopped investing in it. That's my point. And they stopped investing in it long before radio consolidation.

But we'll see how worthless it is when radio stops playing music. Or music that requires a royalty. Satellite companies needed the music to program their channels, but radio doesn't have that problem. Satellite charges customers for commercial-free music. Radio doesn't do that. Yet the labels want a percentage of the commercial revenue. That's one of RIAA's mistakes. Satellite companies are selling access to music. Radio doesn't.

 

[Walking On]

I don't want to defend the charging of royalties, but the truth is, when anyone in a business plays music, it is towards the goal of making money. Advertisers pay a provider for the audience, the audience is gathered because of the content. Why wouldn't the content creator be due a piece of the pie? Music has always provided a benefit to the radio station, but these days radio doesn't provide the benefit to the creator it once did. There are too many mediums diluting the value of any one. In the beginning, radio got stuff for free (sometimes even got payed to put it out there) because the music company got what it needed from it to make it's money from record sales. It was pretty simple then, but the world is different today.

Personally, I think radio has gotten lazy and narrow minded. There are a lot of people out there, and they DON"T all have the same tastes. Sure, there are sheep among us, or those for whom the music is just background noise, but way too many people are complaining about the narrow, focused, or tired playlists for there not to be other answers to the question of what to play. I'm telling you (anyone who'll listen), people get pissed off when you don't play what they ask for.

 

[calavan888]

I received the letter today. It will go up in July by $1.98 to $14.96. That's my bill . Due to what the letter describes as a performance royalty fee ,that was passed by congress. I have to agree that it is just too much to pay. I know Sirius/XM did not want this rate hike. Actually I think the N.A.B. also lobbied against it. But the RIAA won.

 

[TheBigA]

Advertisers pay a provider for the audience, the audience is gathered because of the content. Why wouldn't the content creator be due a piece of the pie?

OK, using that logic, Kenny Rogers flies in private jets and lives in mansions. Where is my cut of his money since I played the records on the radio that helped earn him that money? It's selective benefit. The labels feel that there is no value in free airplay. They are the ONLY ones exempt from paying for access to the airwaves. Even politicians must pay.

The labels want a percentage of revenue, and there are lots of things that go into attracting that revenue. Under the terms of the current proposal, the labels would make a greater percentage of the revenue than the salesman who actually brought in the money. Doesn't THAT seem odd? Once again, radio isn't selling music. They're selling audience. The RIAA isn't distinguishing between radio stations that are music intensive (12 songs an hour) and those that play 6 songs an hour. The bulk of a station's revenue comes in the morning, when they typically play the least amount of music. That's not fair.

There are too many mediums diluting the value of any one. In the beginning, radio got stuff for free (sometimes even got payed to put it out there) because the music company got what it needed from it to make it's money from record sales. It was pretty simple then, but the world is different today.

This may be hard to believe, but none of the other mediums attract as many people as radio. And you can't steal music from the radio as you can from the internet. The problem with record sales has nothing to do with radio. It has to do with crappy music being sold at too high a price.

Sure, there are sheep among us, or those for whom the music is just background noise, but way too many people are complaining about the narrow, focused, or tired playlists for there not to be other answers to the question of what to play.

People complain about a lot of things. They say one thing and do another. They want TV to be more highbrow. Then they watch reality shows. They complain about small playlists, but they still are the most popular stations on the air. Even at satellite radio, the most popular stations are the ones that duplicate the terrestrial stations. Only difference is no commercials. Obviously radio is giving the people what they want.

 

[Starbucks]

>>>Again your missing the point, and the point is why the RIAA wants to charge. Yes I like to hear the same songs over and over, but not for 49 weeks. Stations didn't do that in the 80's and before. it was always kept fresh in some way as far as currents go. and the ability to test the time is testing people to go elsewhere.

How can you compare Disney today when there is not much competition. disney practically owns everything beside Sony. Especially when the Indies can't get played on the Clear Channels. Bad analogy.

First of all

[/quote]


The labels stopped promoting music at radio a long time ago. Older artists milk their existing fan base. New artists don't know how to build one. Artist development is a thing of the past. Not radio's problem. And it didn't start yesterday.


>>>>They were force to because of budget restraints. And what do you mean veterans milking their audience. it doesn't have to be radio's problem. Good programmers look for good songs and acts to debut for play.

Not true. I can give you examples of radio playing songs for 49 weeks. You Light Up My Life. 1977. But once again, you seem to be talking about certain formats.

....Give me examples...I remember "You light Up my life" , when it came out. and it had a bit longer airplay tenure then most current songs of those days, but no way... it wasn't played for 49 weeks, or even barely half that. I remember 1977 very well. yes it was number 1 for I think 10 weeks nationally, (which was a long time for a song in those days) but no way. get me the facts and the playlists of any station's playlist. I don't buy that one bit.

First of all, CC plays indies. So that's a lie.

>>>>They probably do today, but in the 90's and early millenium, they weren't And depends on the format. I doubt AC they were playing indies. And haven't kept up with CC's playlist , or I even care to.

Second of all, most of the indies you mention were gobbled up by majors, and basically killed the small local label business in the 1970s. Label consolidation pre-dates media consolidation by 20 years. You make your bed, you lie in it. My point is that what hurt the relationship between radio and records was when the labels were sold to foreign companies. You can date the end of investment in promotion to the late 80s, early 90s. Foreign companies don't believe in radio promotion. They see radio airplay as a right. It isn't. Not here, anyway.


>>>>Your right on that....the CD industry pretty much was the cause and the conglamoration of Sony, and WEA formed by the end of the 80's, plus the end of the vinyl single all had contributions of the beginning split of R&R. So they both cut their own throats.

I'm just telling you why their passing a fee to everybody with everything. Radio has become worthless to them.

It's become worthless to them because they stopped investing in it. That's my point. And they stopped investing in it long before radio consolidation.

But we'll see how worthless it is when radio stops playing music. Or music that requires a royalty. Satellite companies needed the music to program their channels, but radio doesn't have that problem. Satellite charges customers for commercial-free music. Radio doesn't do that. Yet the labels want a percentage of the commercial revenue. That's one of RIAA's mistakes. Satellite companies are selling access to music. Radio doesn't.

>>>>Well, maybe Obama will form state or government controlled radio formats.

 

[Starbucks]

Advertisers pay a provider for the audience, the audience is gathered because of the content. Why wouldn't the content creator be due a piece of the pie?

OK, using that logic, Kenny Rogers flies in private jets and lives in mansions. Where is my cut of his money since I played the records on the radio that helped earn him that money? It's selective benefit. The labels feel that there is no value in free airplay. They are the ONLY ones exempt from paying for access to the airwaves. Even politicians must pay.

>>>>The bottom line is , you must of worked, or still worked for clear channel after reading the other post.

The labels want a percentage of revenue, and there are lots of things that go into attracting that revenue. Under the terms of the current proposal, the labels would make a greater percentage of the revenue than the salesman who actually brought in the money. Doesn't THAT seem odd? Once again, radio isn't selling music. They're selling audience. The RIAA isn't distinguishing between radio stations that are music intensive (12 songs an hour) and those that play 6 songs an hour. The bulk of a station's revenue comes in the morning, when they typically play the least amount of music. That's not fair.

There are too many mediums diluting the value of any one. In the beginning, radio got stuff for free (sometimes even got payed to put it out there) because the music company got what it needed from it to make it's money from record sales. It was pretty simple then, but the world is different today.

This may be hard to believe, but none of the other mediums attract as many people as radio. And you can't steal music from the radio as you can from the internet. The problem with record sales has nothing to do with radio. It has to do with crappy music being sold at too high a price.

Sure, there are sheep among us, or those for whom the music is just background noise, but way too many people are complaining about the narrow, focused, or tired playlists for there not to be other answers to the question of what to play.

People complain about a lot of things. They say one thing and do another. They want TV to be more highbrow. Then they watch reality shows. They complain about small playlists, but they still are the most popular stations on the air. Even at satellite radio, the most popular stations are the ones that duplicate the terrestrial stations. Only difference is no commercials. Obviously radio is giving the people what they want.

 

[TheBigA]

>>>>They were force to because of budget restraints.

So the labels are the only companies that operate with budget constraints? Come on! Budget constraints didn't stop some labels from buying certain PDs plasma TVs and computers, did it? But how about investing in product? Can't spend money because of budget constraints.

And what do you mean veterans milking their audience.

Journey. The Eagles. The Rolling Stones. Skynyrd. The list goes on.

Good programmers look for good songs and acts to debut for play.

And I think that happens every day. Taylor Swift. Carrie Underwood. Zac Brown Band. Three artists who know how to make quality music, understand how to build fan bases, and know how to work WITH radio.