Op-Ed: Radio Performance Tax Aimed At Conservative Radio Hosts

[DToTheJ]

A Tulsa-based columnist makes an argument that the proposed Radio Performance Tax, which President Obama supports, means bad news for talk radio, with stations changing from music formats to spoken-word formats. "It is an attempt to water down talk radio by flooding the airways with talk shows."

Full story:
http://www.tulsabeacon.com/?p=3935

 

[smedge2006]

Hmmm.... putting more conservative talk radio on is a plot to destroy talk radio.

The beast is about to attack its own tail...

 

[DonTheTrucker]

As despicable as this tax is, it's no big conspiracy to water down talk radio. It's a payoff to the music industry. Nothing more.

And anyone who thinks that there can be "too much" talk radio is insane.

 

[Element9]

Water down talk radio. More Swap-shop, Tradio and Great Garage Sale of the Airwaves. More Birthers and Tea Partying. Such mirth! Except it's not a tax, although the NAB was, but is no longer, trying to spin it as such. I especially like the part where the NAB argues the performance fee will destroy local radio. Bwahhhhhh! Sweet Jeebus, these guys are almost as good as Cheap Channel, Cume-u-lost and Citadeath.

 

[Holland Cooke]

You're RIGHT! It's A CONSPIRACY!

Study those grainy photos of the grassy knoll that fateful afternoon, and you'll spot record label executives.

BUT SERIOUSLY:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2XEe_0KH4o

 

[amfmxm]

Nicely done, Holland, but it seems unlikely that this will ever see the light of day. The president and speaker still have much bigger fish to fry--financial reform, a Supreme Court nominee, two wars to finish, more jobs legislation and/or economic recovery legislation, higher education reform--and with 250 members of congress already opposed... it ain't gonna happen. Not sure why they're even giving it lip service.

Beyond that, this is one of those issues that most everyday folks understand at a gut level: that without radio playing those tunes, hits don't happen. And without hits, Rhianna is just another pretty girl with a great voice singing tonight at the Holiday Inn...

 

[johnbasalla]

I would be more in favor of it if there were guarantees about what percentage will go to the actual artists.

 

[DonTheTrucker]

I would be more in favor of it if there were guarantees about what percentage will go to the actual artists.

You couldn't possibly be implying that ASCAP and BMI are corrupt and only looking out for themselves, could you? ;D

 

[Holland Cooke]

RE "it ain't gonna happen."

The president and speaker still have much bigger fish to fry--financial reform, a Supreme Court nominee, two wars to finish, more jobs legislation and/or economic recovery legislation, higher education reform--and with 250 members of congress already opposed... it ain't gonna happen.

We'd like to THINK that being-preoccupied-with "real problems" would back-burner this issue, but, ironically, those bigger-fish-to-fry could actually ADVANCE this issue. How: It gets tacked-onto a must-pass bill as an amendment. Remember, radio's current sad state-of-affairs is the consequence of de-reg that was part of the 1996 Telecom act.

Remember too: Those 250+ members are signed-onto "a non-binding resolution."

I would be more in favor of it if there were guarantees about what percentage will go to the actual artists.

THAT'S why this would be such a rip-off...

You couldn't possibly be implying that ASCAP and BMI are corrupt and only looking out for themselves, could you?

It's not an ASCAP/BMI problem, it's the labels.

FUNNIEST line I heard all week at the NAB convention in Las Vegas:

These music royalty payments are, in-the-view-of NAB President/CEO Gorgon Smith, “basically a bailout of the major recording companies, three of the four largest of which are foreign owned.” A former U.S. Senator (R-OR), Smith got a big hand when he offered, “I think the American people have had enough bailouts.”

And he had the room howling when he pointed out that, under proposed legislation, “if the record company can’t find the performer or the background musicians, it would keep 100% of the money” these fees collect on artists’ behalf. “It’s amazing in the age of Google that the record companies are having a hard time finding artists to whom they owe money,” he mused. “According to one report, the labels had trouble locating The Mormon Tabernacle Choir. Here’s a suggestion: Start looking in Utah.”

 

[DonTheTrucker]

Even if it's not ASCAP and BMI, it's still not getting money to the artists that deserve it. I'm not sure if I agree that it's a "bailout" as the NAB's been calling it, but word choice is very important these days, and "bailout" is definitely the word to use if you want to turn public opinion against something. For that, The NAB gets credit. They're winning the war of words.

On a selfish level I'd like to see more FM talk coming out of this, but it really can't be good for the business as a whole.

 

[johnbasalla]

Isn't ASCAP, BMI and SESAC in if for the COMPOSERS, not the performers unless they are the same?

 

[Holland Cooke]

Radio thinks it's a rip-off...but it could also be a-step-forward.

Isn't ASCAP, BMI and SESAC in if for the COMPOSERS, not the performers unless they are the same?

That's correct. ASCAP/BMI/SESAC represent composers, who DO get paid.

And nobody-in-radio is saying artists shouldn't.

What radio is saying is why-aren't-labels-paying-their-artists?

Labels counter by saying that radio-pays-to-play in every other country...and that new-platform music apps pay artists...so why not radio?

To which radio says: It's all-we-can-do to-keep-the-lights-on WITHOUT writing these checks.

To-which any objective observer would counter, "hey radio, YOU signed-up for your mortgage. It's not a recording artist's fault that you over-paid for your station."

Blah blah blah, eh?

I'd like to see more FM talk coming out of this, but it really can't be good for the business as a whole.

What few in Talk radio will say aloud -- since it's politically incorrect -- is that they HOPE the royalty thing flies SO there'll be more Talk radio. Syndicators and consultants and jingle guys would be doing cartwheels. Suddenly, more stations!

And I think fewer-music-stations would be GOOD for radio. Surviving music stations' shares would rise, as competition thinned. And -- because so many people now use something-other-than-a-radio for music -- more-Talk-stations would make radio more foreground, thus meaningful, than if radio remains an eroding jukebox appliance.

Que sera, sera.

 

[johnbasalla]

Mr. Cooke, could you see a scenario where there are too many talk stations, and they dilute the market making if difficult for a number of them to make it?

One thing I see is that the doors would have to be open for other kinds of talk, such as lifestyle (Dr. Laura),
possibly advice (although that doesn't sound very exciting, and it seems people want some excitement in their talk), and a better representation for Liberal and even middle-of-the-road talk. I'll bet that in markets that only have one Sports talk station, that would be the first thing to pop up.

 

[TheBigA]

There are several alternatives if the performance tax goes through:

1) As discussed in this thread, stations could flip to news, talk, or sports.

2) Stations could create other non-music programming, as was the case in radio's golden age, with game shows, variety shows, and comedy.

3) Stations could hire local live bands to perform hit songs. Studies have shown that the majority of radio listeners are more attracted to the song than the artist. This is also a technique used by radio in the 20s and 30s when the musicians union prevented radio stations from playing recordings. This led to shows like the Grand Ole Opry, where a radio station presented live performances. The Paul Whiteman vs WBO Broadcasting case in 1940 opened the door for radio stations to play recorded music.

 

[MikefromDelaware]

As a fan of Old Time Radio, I'd love to hear radio dramas, comedy's, variety shows, etc. The problem might be that radio's prime time back then when this sort of programming was king was at night when those great dramas, comedy's, etc generally aired. Yes during the day game shows and soap operas(Helen Trent, Ma Perkins, The Guiding Light, etc) covered the airwaves on CBS, NBC Red/Blue, and Mutual as has been the case today with television (note how even TV is losing most of their soaps due to poor viewership as most women who are the target audience are now in the workplace leaving only the older retired women who the advertisers do not want left as the audience. Radio's prime time now is AM drive and PM drive where dramas, comedy's, variety shows, etc, probably are not a good fit.

What could possibly work, during drive times and possibly during the work day as well would be a modernized version of NBC Radio's "Monitor". Where you play popular MOR music with short news/human interest/comedy segments of only a few minutes in length with well known celebrities making short few minute guest appearances, the hosts on Monitor were generally well known folks from NBC TV (like Gene Rayburn of the Match Game, and Joe Garagola Today show and baseball fame, and some were well known NYC jocks like Ted Brown and Murray the K, etc. The production was professional and well produced. It was a fast moving show. So figure out what music that appeals to the prized demo today that would have a broad enough appeal as MOR music did back in the 50's,60's, and 70's when Monitor aired and come up with compelling entertaining short featurettes, and you have the 21st Century version of Monitor. That sort of entertainment might be workable during dayparts when most listeners are at work.

For the more long form of drama, comedy, etc, evenings would work better, but most folks don't listen to radio at night. Possibly on weekends as NPR seems to do fine with Prarie Home Companion on Saturday nights. So that could open a possibility for commercial radio to do more of that sort of programming, but the cost is probably not doable and a big gamble of pulling in enough listeners, whereas NPR is a special network that those sorts of radio listeners gravitate to and will financially support with their own money which is probably why they can do some of those cool radio things that the commercial boys can't touch.

 

[Holland Cooke]

"could you see a scenario where there are too many talk stations?"

That's hard to imagine, since, right now, we seem to have too many music stations.
And too few, compared to the variety on satellite radio, and the addictive power of Pandora and Last.FM.
And the sheer control iPod gives you over your music.

the doors would have to be open for other kinds of talk, such as lifestyle (Dr. Laura), possibly advice...and a better representation for Liberal and even middle-of-the-road talk. I'll bet that in markets that only have one Sports talk station, that would be the first thing to pop up.

You'd be betting right.
There's lots of good stuff already-in-syndication that's just not being heard in every market.
And I've spoken with a couple networks that are chafing-at-the-bit to launch new stuff...WHEN (not if) FM Talk pops.

 

[DonTheTrucker]

Re: "could you see a scenario where there are too many talk stations?"

And I've spoken with a couple networks that are chafing-at-the-bit to launch new stuff...WHEN (not if) FM Talk pops.

Boy, I hope you're right!

 

[TheBigA]

What could possibly work, during drive times and possibly during the work day as well would be a modernized version of NBC Radio's "Monitor".

What I'm talking about is a radio version of Jersey Shore and Real World. Appealing to younger audiences.

 

[DonTheTrucker]

3) Stations could hire local live bands to perform hit songs. Studies have shown that the majority of radio listeners are more attracted to the song than the artist. This is also a technique used by radio in the 20s and 30s when the musicians union prevented radio stations from playing recordings. This led to shows like the Grand Ole Opry, where a radio station presented live performances. The Paul Whiteman vs WBO Broadcasting case in 1940 opened the door for radio stations to play recorded music.

As fun as that might be, I think the average media consumer is much more media savvy nowadays. After all, if they didn't care about how the song sounded, AM wouldn't be filled with talk shows that require lower sound quality.

Not saying I don't like the idea, it's a GREAT idea. But I don't think it would work beyond dance formats that already thrive on remixed songs.

 

[TheBigA]

As fun as that might be, I think the average media consumer is much more media savvy nowadays. After all, if they didn't care about how the song sounded, AM wouldn't be filled with talk shows that require lower sound quality.

I'm not talking about lower sound quality. Digital recording is available cheaply to any radio station. They can get the same high quality as the major labels. Cover bands can do a pretty credible job on a hit song. When you're recreating songs like Louie Louie and other 60s garage music, what's the difference? If radio groups combine their resources, they can come up with thousands of songs that they own that would be royalty free.