Dave Universal Speaks Out! (Well, A Little Bit)

[Joseph_Gallant]

Radio And Records.com has a short piece in which former WKSE program director Dave Universal speaks out on the payola scandal of which he is accused of being a major figure. While he did not say too much, due to likely litigation, he denied that his acceptance of gifts were in exchange for playing certain records.

Much like Alan Freed was the "symbol" of the late 1950's payola scandal (from which his career never recovered), it appears that Dave Universal will become the "symbol" of this one.

 

[ohmslaw]

> Dave Universal will become the "symbol" of this
> one.

I'm not sticking up for Uni ........but...........
the only difference between the cash flow at any broadcast operation and the fatal sin of "Payola" is that taxes were not paid..corporate didn't get their piece..

Look....if I'm Joe's Garagae (soory Zappa)..or Joe's Car Dealership..restaurant..taco stand Wharever..joe pays me to get the word out on radio..

Same goes for music..if "Joe" pays to advertise and Corporate accepts money..and pays taxes on the cash flow..so?????????

Entercom didn't get their cut..Dave didn't pay taxes..he took a couple trips and saw a couple games..big deal..

so pay the taxes..pay the fine and be done with it.

Uni always had a good book..maybe alittle cocky..so what..
>

 

[SirRoxalot]

Hope you're not "in the biz"

> Entercom didn't get their cut..Dave didn't pay taxes..he
> took a couple trips and saw a couple games..big deal..

The law is very specific. The history of payola is well documented. Play records for money and/or goods without announcing that you're playing them because you're getting paid, and you face fines and/or jail time.

Apparently you haven't followed the links on some of the other posts. DU(h) received THOUSANDS of dollars in goods and services from SONY alone. He not only accepted it, he DEMANDED it according to the e-mails & memos released by Spitzer's office. How aware his bosses at Entercom were of his side deals has yet to be revealed, but I suspect they didn't know the breadth or depth of his involvement.

Dave might want to consider moving to Canada. I don't know what the extradition laws are, but I doubt he'll work in radio in this country again - at least for a major broadcasting group.

 

[dampier]

> Radio And Records.com has a short piece in which former WKSE
> program director Dave Universal speaks out on the payola
> scandal of which he is accused of being a major figure.
> While he did not say too much, due to likely litigation, he
> denied that his acceptance of gifts were in exchange for
> playing certain records.

Oh please.... If it came from Sony and was a plasma TV or free trips or even free electronics, it's for playing certain records. He was supposedly also on the "rate card" list which makes it pretty clear.

I've gotten freebies from record companies before - pens, candy hearts, a bar of soap, some Tootsie Rolls, and one of those flashing lights you were when walking in the dark. I can remember those. Maybe "Dave Indicted" needs to start using the usual phrases like "I have no recollection of receiving free trips, plasma TVs, or big checks..." or "I cannot comment about an ongoing investigation." You'd have to be stupid not to put it together.

 

[ThePickleReport]

Re: Hope you're not "in the biz"

> The law is very specific. The history of payola is well
> documented. Play records for money and/or goods without
> announcing that you're playing them because you're getting
> paid, and you face fines and/or jail time.

All this is true. I'm not defending it but the station owners and GM's are completely aware that this goes on and in most cases are a part of it.

 

[Desi_Bell]

NY Times Editorial

What's more...the NY Times agrees with this point of view. From today's editorial page:

July 27, 2005
Playola
Perhaps the question is this: If you were a disc jockey or a radio station manager, would the chance to play blackjack with Celine Dion in Las Vegas induce you to put her single "I Drove All Night" on the air more often? Or would you find yourself wondering why a music giant like Sony BMG felt it needed to support a wealthy singer's new record with badly disguised bribes? The latter thought will occur to many who read the e-mail correspondence gathered by Eliot Spitzer, New York's attorney general, whose investigation of Sony BMG's payola practices ended this week with a $10 million payment.

Those e-mail notes portray a curious world of mutual need. Some show a record company aggressively pushing its quid pro quo, threatening to come down hard on stations that accepted its bribes but didn't follow through with airtime. But in other e-mail, you can almost hear the venality of station personnel, a palpable eagerness to be bought off with a laptop, a DVD player or a "flyaway" to New York. The sums may sound trifling, but the crime is real. And the sums may not sound so trifling when the attorney general has finished his investigation of the practices of other record companies.

No one supposes that radio playlists are the results of pure popularity or artistic merit - not since the payola scandals of the late 1950's and early 60's. The radio map has changed entirely since then. It has seen the near-demise of local stations, the rise of powerful national networks like Clear Channel, the splintering of audiences and the appearance of satellite radio. The radio spectrum at the moment includes everything from ironclad rotations for mass markets to an untested merger of radio and the Internet called podcasting. To the extent that they offer payola, record companies will offer it only to the largest of these outlets. As Mr. Spitzer continues his investigation, he would do well to look at those who are doing the taking as well as those who are doing the bribing.

 

[Joseph_Gallant]

Re: Payolagate

It seems to me that had WKSE announced on-the-air something to the effect of "This playing of (title of song) by (name of artist or group) has been paid for by (name of record company), which has released this song", that there would have been no legal problems.

Am I correct in this assumption??

 

[topsound]

Re: Payolagate

> It seems to me that had WKSE announced on-the-air something
> to the effect of "This playing of (title of song) by (name
> of artist or group) has been paid for by (name of record
> company), which has released this song", that there would
> have been no legal problems.
>
> Am I correct in this assumption??
>

To the best of my knowledge, both you and Rox above are correct in your interpretation. It's just as legal to pay for airplay as to pay for a commercial. The lack of disclosure is what makes it illegal. If a station allows, a record company could buy as many slots as it likes for a record, just as it might for an ad, as long as there is a clear disclaimer stating such.

However, in the interest of retaining whatever slim credibility they have left, I don't believe many stations take the step of regularly identifying their programming choices in this way.

The distinction is blurry between paying the station (cash or in-kind) and paying an individual. The stations protect themselves with payola affidavits, but still have to be careful about the quid-pro-quo of accepting listener giveaways, on-location remotes, station concerts, etc. It seems obvious that if the AG wants to extend the probe to the radio side, it would be much easier to go after individuals who accepted gifts for their own use.

Your thoughts?