I can see it with real estate advertising, but it makes no sense to me that advertising for, say, country star Jason Aldean's tour can't be pitched to 25-34 without letting the agency know that it shouldn't bother with stations running urban and Hispanic music formats. I agree, I'm probably not getting something here. Maybe David will drop by to explain better.
-
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
I can see it with real estate advertising, but it makes no sense to me that advertising for, say, country star Jason Aldean's tour can't be pitched to 25-34 without letting the agency know that it shouldn't bother with stations running urban and Hispanic music formats. I agree, I'm probably not getting something here. Maybe David will drop by to explain better.
I'm pretty sure country tours don't advertise that way. Most are done "in house" rather than through an agency. And they don't usually buy 25-34, but a specific station: The one that has the "presents." That's one way to get what you want. Buy only the country station as part of an overall promotion package that also includes contesting.
I think a lot of this has to do with the language in the buy. You can't say "exclude" but you can target specific stations.
The prohibition by the FCC is on buys that specify "No Black" or "No Hispanic" in the buy specifications. Stations have to certify, for renewal, that they have screened for this and have not accepted any buys where the paperwork has those broad exclusions.
A country lifestyle campaign... let's say one where the creative only fits a country station... may specify something like "country formats only, 25-54 men" in the target.
For agencies, the easiest way to make sure stations are not forced to refuse a buy, is to not put the buy restrictions out to stations. The FCC's intent was to try to indirectly influence advertisers so that they would not arbitrarily exclude certain categories.
"(March 22, 2011) The Federal Communications Commission has released an Enforcement Advisory to alert commercial television and radio broadcasters to an important new requirement. Each broadcast outlet must certify that their advertising sales contracts contain nondiscrimination clauses and do not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.
The Enforcement Advisory explains that the new requirement is aimed at advertising contracts that contain "no urban/no Spanish" dictates, by which advertisers and their agencies intentionally by-pass urban and Latino stations, supposedly because the client has dictated that its ads not be placed with those outlets.
FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said, "It should be clear from today's advisory that the Commission will vigorously enforce its rules against discrimination in advertising sales contracts. As the Commission stated in its order adopting the rule, discrimination simply has no place in broadcasting.""
Conversely I'm familiar with advertisers who specifically target minorities. McDonalds spots are all over urban radio.
And Hispanic radio, too. I even hear them running in English amid all the Spanish talk and music on area Spanish-language CHRs. Cheap, sodium-and-fat-laden food is the universal language, I guess.
Advertisers are always looking to get their biggest "bang for the buck". If you're selling pimple cream, chances are you are
not looking to place a buy on a talk station - probably not geared towards your target audience. Occasionally, we will get
spots from agencies, that are looking to specifically target a Spanish or Brazilian audience. The approach is analogous to a
rifle, versus a shotgun.
not looking to place a buy on a talk station - probably not geared towards your target audience. Occasionally, we will get
spots from agencies, that are looking to specifically target a Spanish or Brazilian audience. The approach is analogous to a
rifle, versus a shotgun.
Nowhere do I pretend to be in the business. All I can add to this topic is the reaffirmation that I have heard, yet not often, spots that target a specific audience on stations of which you wouldn't think the target customer to listen. iHeart is huge with that. How many times have I heard the iHeart Music festival advertised on Rock 101, playing pretty much the same spot that you would hear on Kiss 108. Now, in that case iHeart owns both stations, but the idea is to get the message out. I have heard advertisements for Country concerts on Rock stations.
In the end, I do see it as business and not the legal term for payola. If I'm paying for my business to be advertised on a certain program (Radio or TV), I'm am paying to endorse that program in return for getting my ad out. If the radio station choose to forgo my money and continue to run the content the way they deem fit, then that's their choice. Look at Howard Stern in his FM days. Many companies pulled advertisement over his content, but Infinity was able to get paid through companies that didn't take issues with said content.
Therefore, it's up to the talent to be that good, and for the station to be willing to take a risk. WNBC wasn't with Stern, and WXRK was willing.
In the end, I do see it as business and not the legal term for payola. If I'm paying for my business to be advertised on a certain program (Radio or TV), I'm am paying to endorse that program in return for getting my ad out. If the radio station choose to forgo my money and continue to run the content the way they deem fit, then that's their choice. Look at Howard Stern in his FM days. Many companies pulled advertisement over his content, but Infinity was able to get paid through companies that didn't take issues with said content.
Therefore, it's up to the talent to be that good, and for the station to be willing to take a risk. WNBC wasn't with Stern, and WXRK was willing.
Back in the early 80s, WBZ, threw a party for one of the DJs, and the guest list included select staff, ad sales guys, past and present DJs, and some heavy hitters from the fringes of the industry. One of those guys, a former promo guy for one of the major record labels, had a couple of drinks too many and started talking about 'back in the day." When he started talking 'payola' the tension in the room skyrocketed. He started naming names and amounts he used to pay for play. As he reeled off names, some 'BZ staff hustled him out of the room before he started mentioning anyone present (and judging from the looks of relief on a few of the faces, a couple of old BZers had at least a passing acquaintance with this guy.
Of course, this was before Jerry Williams, and some of his associates, got fired and the earth shifted on its axis and the world turned dark.
Regards,
TSB
Of course, this was before Jerry Williams, and some of his associates, got fired and the earth shifted on its axis and the world turned dark.
Regards,
TSB
When I was at WBZ in the 80s, our investigative team was doing a feature which was very 'pro' lemon law. A major ad agency called the GM and said their client, a major automotive dealer group, was unhappy with the series. It was pretty easy to read between the lines. The sales rep on the agency was on vacation so the GM, who trusted me, called me in, told me to go see the account exec on the dealer group account at the agency, and be very tactful in telling them that whatever they were expecting to happen wasn't going to happen. As I was explaining the facts of life to her, it became pretty obvious that she, and the agency, knew that we'd never tell the reporters to back off due to advertiser pressure, but needed a story to tell the dealer group to calm them down. I told her that the station was prepared to offer the dealer group some time in an upcoming segment to give their side of the story in the interest of fairness. We both knew they'd never take it, but it gave the agency the opportunity to show the client they'd gone to bat for them. In the final analysis, everyone won. What people seem to forget is that back in the glory days, the top stations were billing so much that no one client was spending enough to have the horsepower to dictate news coverage.
Now, this kind of pressure had a flip side. There was a time when a very prominent Boston talk radio personality was accused to pressuring the Mass state Treasurer in order to get his girl friend a job at the Lottery. Since constitutional officers were fair game for talk shows and regularly beaten up, you didn't have to be a homicide detective to read the subtext in this deal.
Now, this kind of pressure had a flip side. There was a time when a very prominent Boston talk radio personality was accused to pressuring the Mass state Treasurer in order to get his girl friend a job at the Lottery. Since constitutional officers were fair game for talk shows and regularly beaten up, you didn't have to be a homicide detective to read the subtext in this deal.
Last edited:
We relate to this as broadcasters....but if you look at it from the persepective of the car dealer(s).
"Why are we buying spots and putting money into the pocket of a station that is dissing us every day?"
Do you blame the dealers? I am glad the GM of WBZ didn't cave.....However, I wouldn't blame the dealers if they yanked their ad dollars....would you?
It's an outdated law. Product placement in stores is often bought & paid for. So why not on the radio? Back in the day, when there were music stores, the front window displays were bought and paid for by the record labels.
But the most important thing to know about payola laws is they only apply to broadcast radio. My friends at Sirius don't sign Payola agreements. Payola is legal for streaming companies, internet radio stations, and other digital outlets. There are record promoters who can buy spins on digital radio, and they don't have to disclose the spins are paid.
Having said all that, Congress has no pending legislation that would repeal the payola laws, and given the way things work there, I'm not expecting any changes any time soon, even though the current majority talks a lot about repealing outdated regulations.
Last edited:
Much of what makes payola illegal involves who gets the money. Payola, by definition, occurs when money or consideration are given to an employee of a radio station without the knowledge or consent of the station's owner or manager. In other words, the employee is stealing airtime for personal benefit. On the station side, the violation is allowing it to happen, not logging the spins as commercial and not announcing the sponsor.
Of course, it doesn't matter where the money goes. If the station or the station owner gets paid for spins, it must be identified as a sponsored spin.
Couple of thoughts...
Why broadcast radio? Because radio was built on the premise as a "public trustee to serve the public good". Which is quite different that a a grocery store...which everyone knows is in the business of making money free-market style.
Also, product placement is acceptable, as long as it is above board, noted and identified as such.
I suppose this goes to the basis on trust in media...the difference between editorial and commentary, which, as well all know has been diluted.
It doesn't? Should it go into a DJ's shirt pocket?
But sponsor ID is a requirement for the licensee. In the payola prosecutions of the last 60 years, it has been the individuals who have been charged with taking money or favors for airplay without the licensee benefiting.
The licensee can be charged with failure to control the station if employees are making outside deals, but that falls under fitness as a licensee.
Of course, Spitzer in New York tried to broaden payola to include the licensees in the cases of independent promoters, but all he managed was some negotiated "fines" whereby owners of stations paid to make the issue go away. Spitzer misjudged the public's reaction to pay for play, and he realized that he gained no political points with the whole affair. Of course, we know what an upstanding citizen Spitzer was...
Or up his nose, if the stories I've heard of cocaine-for-airplay deals back in the day are true?
That's not why the law was enacted. Why is broadcast television not covered under the same law? Is it not also a public trust?
Read the context of my comment.
That's fine but these days radio companies make deals with labels and artists on behalf of their companies. Some radio companies are also co-owners of record labels. In both cases, those companies know that all related plays must be identified.
I think sponsors being identified is a TV rule as well.
I remember a time when game shows had to disclose (maybe they still do) that prizes & products were featured as part of paid advertising. (I seem to recall Let's Make a Deal, and other game shows made an announcement at the end) ;-)
Also, the old FBI show was sponsored by Ford....and the credits always included that the cars in the show "were furnished by Ford".
Could it be that the lines of sponsorship and program content are a little more clear to the TV audiences since the days of the Camel News Caravan...or the Chesterfields Amateur Hour? The do indicate that "the following is a 'paid program', when people might think an infomercial is an actual program.
In radio, the songs sound like program content to the listeners.
Plus, the payola/plugola rules were a congressional response to the idea that the public was being duped by DJ's
I guess I don't understand the context of your comment. Was it implied sarcasm?
- Status