I heard a promo, voiced by Larry Wells, this afternoon saying something about an important announcement tomorrow morning concerning "what you can do to keep the greatest good time rock 'n' roll of all time from disappearing from DRC-FM." "This is serious," he added. What's going on? I checked out drcfm.com and the Facebook page and there's nothing about this in either place.
-
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
DRC-FM: Format threatened?
- Thread starter CTListener
- Start date
The Buckley stations have been very vocal in airing the no performance tax announcements. I regularly listen to WOR 710 when at work and hear it often. I wonder if there's some hob-bub coming down the pike with it.
F
fmradio1
Guest
It's all about the performance royalty. It's not a tax. Radio has historically not paid performance royalties to music artists. Congress has allowed that exemption from copyright law, since airplay has often led to music sales. The RIAA and record labels have lobbied for the exemption to be lifted, since the music industry has changed dramatically over the last fifteen years. With the explosion of digital media, the internet, music piracy and alternative music sources (satellite radio, internet radio, Pandora, Youtube, I-pods etc.) there are many places to be exposed to music, not just terrestrial radio. All of those other music services pay performance royalties. Plus, terrestrial radio stations in every other industrialized country in the world also pay this royalty. The only holdout is terrestrial radio in the US. The artists and labels are trying to level the playing field.
Look, do you really think The Eagles, Madonna, U2 or Aerosmith sell a lot of albums these days? The answer would be no, but their songs are played tens of thousands of times every day on US radio stations. No wonder these artists are so vocal about imposing a performance royalty on radio. Corporate owned radio, which represents 75-80 percent of the radio listening in this country, is making billions of dollars on their backs! They want a piece of that action, and I can't blame them.
TV stations pay for the shows they air. Newspapers and internet news sites pay the reporters to generate the stories consumers read. Cable companies and channels pay for content. To bring it back to music, supermarkets, restaurants and other businesses that pipe in music pay a performance royalty as part of their monthly fee for those services. DJ services (at least the legit ones) pay it as well. It's about time terrestrial radio falls into line. It's only fair.
In the new media universe we live in, it's no longer about generating record sales, it's about usage. I hear the argument, "if it's not broken, don't fix it" but the fact is, it is broken. Music sales are way down. People are going to the 'net to discover new music. Record stores are closing down. Piracy is rampant. Most importantly, radio isn't breaking music anymore. Chances are the next big song will come from an Apple ad or American Idol than from corporate radio.
Radio doesn't want to pay up, so they're marketing this copyright law change as a "tax" and trying to drum up support from listeners by mis-representing the issue. Don't be fooled.
Look, do you really think The Eagles, Madonna, U2 or Aerosmith sell a lot of albums these days? The answer would be no, but their songs are played tens of thousands of times every day on US radio stations. No wonder these artists are so vocal about imposing a performance royalty on radio. Corporate owned radio, which represents 75-80 percent of the radio listening in this country, is making billions of dollars on their backs! They want a piece of that action, and I can't blame them.
TV stations pay for the shows they air. Newspapers and internet news sites pay the reporters to generate the stories consumers read. Cable companies and channels pay for content. To bring it back to music, supermarkets, restaurants and other businesses that pipe in music pay a performance royalty as part of their monthly fee for those services. DJ services (at least the legit ones) pay it as well. It's about time terrestrial radio falls into line. It's only fair.
In the new media universe we live in, it's no longer about generating record sales, it's about usage. I hear the argument, "if it's not broken, don't fix it" but the fact is, it is broken. Music sales are way down. People are going to the 'net to discover new music. Record stores are closing down. Piracy is rampant. Most importantly, radio isn't breaking music anymore. Chances are the next big song will come from an Apple ad or American Idol than from corporate radio.
Radio doesn't want to pay up, so they're marketing this copyright law change as a "tax" and trying to drum up support from listeners by mis-representing the issue. Don't be fooled.
Sorry... but I respectfully disagree with you. It is, essentially, reverse payola. Stations already pay fees for the rights to broadcast music. Now they want them pay additional fees. It's ridiculous. It's not radio's fault that there is massive amounts of piracy happening. But, it is in effect, promotion. Radio airplay has a direct effect on music sales. And the performance tax, or fee, or whatever you want to call it, will pretty much cripple an industry that is already possibly in it's death throes. Most music stations will either have to flip to talk formats, or just shut the towers down altogether.
http://www.noperformancetax.org/
http://www.noperformancetax.org/
F
fmradio1
Guest
Ok, one at a time...
It's not "reverse payola." It's paying for content. Terrestrial radio no longer has a monopoly on exposing music to the masses. There are plenty of other places to go, and they all pay the royalty. So should corporate radio.
Stations pay ASCAP and BMI fees to the songwriters, not the performers. Again, the other services pay those fees as well, plus the performance royalty.
It's true that radio isn't responsible for music piracy, but that doesn't matter. Sales are down, with piracy being only one of many reasons. People are using services (including radio) instead of buying physical copies of the music these days. If the other services have to pay, so should radio.
You say radio "promotes" music. When the glut of oldies, classic hits, classic rock, and mainstream AC stations play the same tired songs over and over ad nauseum, that's not promotion. That airplay isn't generating sales for those artists. Listeners consume those songs, radio makes money on the commercials that air, and the artists don't get any of it. I'm sorry, but that's unfair. In addition, when a new artist releases a hit song, it gets a few hundred thousand spins, and these days that's normally not enough to move 500,000 copies of their CD. In fact, most artists see their biggest sales total the first week of a album's release, way before radio really starts playing it, if at all. Bottom line, radio promotion doesn't work anymore. Pay up.
If the radio industry is "crippled" or in it's "death throes" it's their own damn fault. It was the big consolidators that overpaid for all those radio stations. They laid off all their talent, stopped doing research and stopped paying for marketing and promotion. That doesn't change the fact that the music industry has changed. The labels are having to adjust to a new business model, which is based on charging for usage instead of physical sales. Radio has to deal with the new realities, not pretend it's 2002 anymore.
Radio will not shut down or move to talk formats. It's a scare tactic. Each market can only support so many talk stations and there are only so many syndicated shows to go around. Running a live, local talk format is much more expensive than just paying the performance royalty. It just means terrestrial radio will make a little less money, but keep in mind that radio is still MAKING PLENTY OF MONEY! They just aren't making enough to cover their ridiculous debt service. That's their fault, not the labels.
I invite people to get the full story on the performance royalty at
http://musicfirstcoalition.org/
It's not "reverse payola." It's paying for content. Terrestrial radio no longer has a monopoly on exposing music to the masses. There are plenty of other places to go, and they all pay the royalty. So should corporate radio.
Stations pay ASCAP and BMI fees to the songwriters, not the performers. Again, the other services pay those fees as well, plus the performance royalty.
It's true that radio isn't responsible for music piracy, but that doesn't matter. Sales are down, with piracy being only one of many reasons. People are using services (including radio) instead of buying physical copies of the music these days. If the other services have to pay, so should radio.
You say radio "promotes" music. When the glut of oldies, classic hits, classic rock, and mainstream AC stations play the same tired songs over and over ad nauseum, that's not promotion. That airplay isn't generating sales for those artists. Listeners consume those songs, radio makes money on the commercials that air, and the artists don't get any of it. I'm sorry, but that's unfair. In addition, when a new artist releases a hit song, it gets a few hundred thousand spins, and these days that's normally not enough to move 500,000 copies of their CD. In fact, most artists see their biggest sales total the first week of a album's release, way before radio really starts playing it, if at all. Bottom line, radio promotion doesn't work anymore. Pay up.
If the radio industry is "crippled" or in it's "death throes" it's their own damn fault. It was the big consolidators that overpaid for all those radio stations. They laid off all their talent, stopped doing research and stopped paying for marketing and promotion. That doesn't change the fact that the music industry has changed. The labels are having to adjust to a new business model, which is based on charging for usage instead of physical sales. Radio has to deal with the new realities, not pretend it's 2002 anymore.
Radio will not shut down or move to talk formats. It's a scare tactic. Each market can only support so many talk stations and there are only so many syndicated shows to go around. Running a live, local talk format is much more expensive than just paying the performance royalty. It just means terrestrial radio will make a little less money, but keep in mind that radio is still MAKING PLENTY OF MONEY! They just aren't making enough to cover their ridiculous debt service. That's their fault, not the labels.
I invite people to get the full story on the performance royalty at
http://musicfirstcoalition.org/
radiopromoguy said:
B
Big Bill
Guest
All I hear is about corporate this and that. What about the small groups who are barely making it?
Big Bill said:
Small groups, as in groups of radio stations, or small groups, as in bands that haven't made it big yet?
I listened to what Jerry and his phone-in guest, Mark Rice (I think that's his name), head of the Conn. Broadcasters Assoc., had to say. A lot of boo-hooing about how unfair it is, especially to smaller broadcasters and especially in the grip of the great advertising depression. They said they understood the record companies' business model is failing, but said that's not radio's fault -- no argument there; the "home taping" bogeyman was slain decades ago.
No mention at all of other media having to pay the performance royalty at all, but quite a bit of tea-party-ish anti-big-government, anti-foreigner jingoism. Both Kristafer and Rice really made a big deal about how 50 percent of the proposed fee would be going to the big four major record companies -- three of which are (horrors!) based overseas! "More money leaving the country!" Jerry moaned. "Sheesh!" Mike Stevens sighed sympathetically. Jerry warned that if this thing passes, "We'll be sitting here talking about the songs you could have just heard instead of playing them!" The whole thing wrapped up with an invitation to visit a website for more information, courtesy of the broadcast industry.
The best thing about it was the music chosen to play between the talk segments: "Mercy, Mercy, Mercy," "Help!" and "Stand By Me." Nice!
fmradio1 said:
So, why should radio pay a double tax? Songwriters receive an amount of money from the ASCAP and BMI fees that all broadcasters have to send, which are significant depending on the size and ratings of the station. That's more than enough. Be realistic - most artists would not be in the mainstream, in any fashion, without radio. Yes, still today. Let's take a perfect example - Owl City, led by 23-year old Adam Young. He made the hit song "Fireflies" in his basement. He was known by a certain group - the group that is into indie rock, and loved by them. When he had shows a couple hundred people would go, if that, and he wasn't making a lot of money because there weren't a lot of album sales to go along with being part of that niche.
Next thing you know, "Fireflies" blew up on radio, first on CHR, then on Hot AC, and even some AC stations are playing it. Owl City was grabbing huge performance fees from performing at Kiss 108 and Q102's Christmas concerts...suddenly being booked full of appearances and on tour. You can be he grossed a large amount of money from all of that. And how did he do it? Local radio.
Same with Lady Gaga. Look how she blew up from a nobody to a top-of-the-line, in the forefront of the music and entertainment business artist. Did that happen on the internet? Terrestrial radio was the first to play "Just Dance", and then she started selling it on iTunes, then she was everywhere.
It is a very nieve assumption to believe that the internet and satellite radio are how artists get big these days. While the internet and satellite radio hold a percentage of the market share, it wouldn't be enough to make artists big, sell tickets to their shows and promote their music adequately. Why do you think labels spend so much on radio promotion?
It is my strong belief that artists should be more responsible from the proceeds that they do receive. If you go on tour, don't blow all your money. Show some personal responsibility -- but that's right, this is America in the 21st century, the "government will take care of you, don't worry son." Instead of buying 5 Mercedes, buy 1. Who really needs 5 different Mercedes? Let's say, for example, Eddie Money - a guy not many people will probably pay to see with no current songs on the radio - runs out of money. He should have planned for that, instead of blowing all of his money back in the day, not just receive money because he had a hit 20 years ago.
None of the things that the NAB are doing, or the CT Broadcasters Association, for that matter as well, are "scare tactics" -- it's reality. The proposed taxes would cripple radio stations that are live and local to their communities. I, for sure, will be unemployed, as will dozens of other people....so that a bunch of artists who spend their money erratically get money and YOUR money goes overseas? While there are some that are just a jukebox that make tons of revenue, for every one of those there are great broadcasters who work hard to put a great local product on the air. There are many of them just in Connecticut itself.
There are some corporations that have erred in the radio business, for sure. There are some that have in the record label business, too. Why should only the radio business be held accountable?
Joe Courtney has been an excellent advocate for the radio industry in Washington; and he should be commended for his work. If you guys want less choices, more talk, and less variety; then by all means, support the bill. But wake up and realize what it's really about.
Adam Rivers
APD/MD
WILI-FM, Willimantic
C
cspotrun
Guest
with most of the large broadcast groups filing for bankruptcy, talk about BAD TIMING! it takes alot of B*ll$ to ask for Performance Fees NOW in this economy from Radio Broadcasters... fact is, if most of these Old Rockers hadn't blown all the money they made years ago buying things to smoke or stick up their nose they wouldn't be BEGGING for money now. i remember i time when these people dropped by the station BEGGING you to play their records on the RADIO, now they want to shake you down FOR Playing their records on the Radio! Al Capone would be proud.
if THEY want a Performance Fee, let them do a Concert- AND IF ANYONE SHOWS UP, IT WILL BE BECAUSE THEIR MUSIC WAS PLAYED ON THE RADIO. lets see how many fans they draw singing on the streetcorner.
if THEY want a Performance Fee, let them do a Concert- AND IF ANYONE SHOWS UP, IT WILL BE BECAUSE THEIR MUSIC WAS PLAYED ON THE RADIO. lets see how many fans they draw singing on the streetcorner.
The only problem is that terrestrial radio isn't the only game in town anymore for music promotion. There's internet streaming, where many of the younger set now gets exposed to music thanks to their peers. Over-the-air radio doesn't have the grip it once did.
Also, where was the NAB when webcasters got hit with the fees from the entire CARP / Copyright Royalty Board fiasco? Internet radio got hit with fees and many of them went belly-up! Being a former webcaster who paid the fees (via Live365) I know I was one of the many webcasters who pulled the plug due to the simple fact the potential for a viable busness model for small scale webstreams was bleak. If the performance tax royalty goes through (it is not a tax, unlike the NAB's claim) many stations may go out. This may very well trim down the bloat of the mega radio conglomerates, either by them liquidating underperforming properties or by going bankrupt. It's hard for me to feel sorry for them when the very same folks said very little during the battle webcasters went through before them.
Also, where was the NAB when webcasters got hit with the fees from the entire CARP / Copyright Royalty Board fiasco? Internet radio got hit with fees and many of them went belly-up! Being a former webcaster who paid the fees (via Live365) I know I was one of the many webcasters who pulled the plug due to the simple fact the potential for a viable busness model for small scale webstreams was bleak. If the performance tax royalty goes through (it is not a tax, unlike the NAB's claim) many stations may go out. This may very well trim down the bloat of the mega radio conglomerates, either by them liquidating underperforming properties or by going bankrupt. It's hard for me to feel sorry for them when the very same folks said very little during the battle webcasters went through before them.
How much more money does the record company need,they all to rich like the oil companies are.I understand these people got to get payed.but how many times.we play the darn record to promote the music,they should be happy about that.they should be paying us for playing their dam songs to start with.Also some of the artist are getting hosed from the record companies too. ok on WDRC they are playing the crap out of the psa ,which its good.
Heres another thread I started on here awhile ago.
http://boards.radio-info.com/smf/index.php?topic=148255.0
Heres another thread I started on here awhile ago.
http://boards.radio-info.com/smf/index.php?topic=148255.0
fmradio1 said:
I agree with you on your second point, but disagree with you on the first. Older music may not be reliant on record sales, but the phrase "its new to you" has some application. I am one of many who spend cash on music by artists who have been AARP eligible for many years. The Beatles, Dylan, Motown, Elvis and other still sell albums to people just discovering their music for the first time.....because they heard guys like me playing it on the radio.
Both radio stations and record companies are in the business of selling product for as much as as they can and paying talent as little as possible - the history of the record industry is rife with screwing people out of royalties. Hell....google Morris Levy or Herman Lubinsky and find out for yourself. Neither industry can claim the high road.
Radio should be highlighting all the good we do for artists and songwriters instead of Doomsday crap that most people wont care about. And the record industry should stop trying to sue its way back to the 1980s - both groups need to deal with the changing times and find a new business model and not fighting like idiots.
Something like this will most certainly kill any music on college radio stations, unless they are some how exempt due to their non-com status. Does anyone know?
- Status