I realize this subject is a bit taboo, but I was wondering if "Pay for Play" still commonly exists these days?
-
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
Pay for Play
- Thread starter Brian Bowers
- Start date
Rolling Stone digs this same story up every few years. A lot of un-named "sources" and a lot of vague generalities.
Payola is only a crime on broadcast radio. Payola happens every day in the digital world. Sirius, Apple, Spotify all get paid.
Everyone who works in radio is required to sign a form saying they know what payola is, and they won't accept it.
Last edited:
...maybe because it exists? It definitely was taking place even just a few years ago where I worked. Corporate even made all employees sign a notice stating that they would not partake in the practice, but even then (in even a more discreet fashion) it continued on.
How else do you want to explain the no-talent unoriginal garbage that gets on the air?
If it exists, they'd get someone on the record saying it exists. Instead we get unnamed sources.
Taking money for airplay is NOT illegal. As I said, it happens everywhere. What radio stations have to do is disclose it. And there are lots of ways to do that. The only place where payola is a federal crime is broadcast radio. I believe that's wrong, and the payola laws should apply to digital media too.
That's a music problem, not a radio problem. I play lots of music that I personally don't like. I don't play it for me. I play it because we have an audience that likes it. That's a personal taste thing. Right now, we have the ability to see exactly what people like by viewing the streaming charts. Labels can't force people to stream certain songs. People listen because they like it. Even if some people think it sucks.
...as they typically do during the overnight hours (when many listeners are not listening) - the same as they do with contest rules. How respectful of radio. Yeah, that's right - I hate the industry I once loved.
The disclosure follows the paid spin. If that happens in the overnight, then that's when it happens. If listeners don't hear the disclosure, they also don't hear the song.
The record labels claim they don't need radio airplay. That's what MusicFirst says. Are they lying?
When the sources talk only on the condition of anonymity, but the reporters (and their editors and publishers) believe those sources to be credible and reliable, the stories run. That doesn't automatically discredit the allegations made by those sources. The Watergate break-in was exposed by an anonymous source known as "Deep Throat." It happened.
I'm convinced that there is substance to the Rolling Stone story, if only because a lot of people in radio are working for short money these days with no realistic hope that their situation will improve. Under-the-table payments can and do go undetected, and there's plenty of motivation for a music director or program director who hasn't seen a raise in three years to pick up some easy moolah by slipping in a few extra spins of some pop title.
I could tell you of payment for stories in newspapers, especially during print's sharp decline in the internet era. Paid opinion pieces, paid travel stories, paid reviews. The temptation is great when your paycheck is stagnant or shrinking. I can't understand why you would still think people in radio, who are facing the same sinking-ship situation as their press brethren, would still be clinging to some lofty standard of integrity, especially when taking the money and delivering the spins seems so very easy to get away with.
I've never been with a station in the US that sold airplay in the overnight hours... dating back to my first job in 1959... and covering about 150 stations, including consulting clients.
I have heard stories about some stations that sold plays back before airplay was electronically monitored. Back then, airplay could be reported even if it was nights only or overnights. Today, most people exclude overnight play when looking for song "moves".
I have heard of a few cases of paid play, but never "saw" one up close. Saying that stations do this "typically" is a gross exaggeration.
As to contest rules, stations have been forced by our litigious society to place full rules in an announcement that runs a few times a day. Previously, we had relatively simple contests where rules were not required: "6th caller wins", "most original something-or-other wins" and so on. Employees signed that they or their immediate family could not win.
In general, stations try to do contests that can be fully explained and promoted in a 30 seconds, so extensive rules are not required except to protect ourselves in the event of a litigious listener. We find today that "prize pigs" have added legal threats to their complaints, so we put rules online and in occasional on-air announcements. The problem here is not the station but listeners who think they have a right to a prize and will do anything to force us to give them one.
We also have a lot of people who believe conspiracy theories. A few good examples that were overseen by serious publishers who put their personal fortunes on the line are very different from an outside article in Rolling Stone. I have no reason to believe that the linked article in this thread went through anywhere near the number of checks that Woodward & Bernstein used in the 70s. In my opinion, Rolling Stone has an ax to grind here. The fact that I see similar articles with the same vague examples from ten years ago tells me this is not like Watergate.
Every spin is monitored by Mediabase. Even stations that aren't reporters are monitored. So labels can see what stations are spinning, and they see when those spins happen. You say they can go undetected, but I find that hard to believe given the number of people watching. If a song makes an unexpected move, the other labels want to know why. And if an indie promoter costs a major label money, that's a problem. If unauthorized spins of bad songs cost a radio station ratings, questions will be asked. It's not the 1980s anymore.
I know for a fact that one of the radio stations that I worked for in the cluster gladly participated in the Pay for Play for many of the last 8 years that I worked there. Via the PD, I heard about it all of the time. Mixing boards, microphones, swag...you name it, was many times paid for by Paid for Play. I was just wondering how blatantly it still exists. Some may not have been privy to the actual existence of it taking place in their facility.
You brought this up in a similar thread 6 years ago. A lot of us asked you if you reported it.
As pointed out in the previous thread, the labels aren't spending money on radio because they make more money from streaming. Payola is legal in streaming.
Last edited:
There is nothing illegal about selling 3:30 length ads that are made up of a song. Payola is, by definition, the playing of songs or the promotion of a business where the employee is paid without the knowledge or authorization of the station management or ownership.
When a station takes money for play, they can get in trouble if they don't identify the play's sponsor. But that is a different infraction entirely.
Another example of compensation was when independent promoters got the "exclusive reporting credit" for a station's adds. In exchange, they got T-shirts and stickers and other stuff. This was always a gray area; it was not payment for playing a song but it was an uncomfortably close relationship with the station in regards to adds and moves.
No. Why should I? We were getting some luxury items that we needed (or wanted)! In its roundabout way, I'm pretty sure the practice was legal. I do think it however pushed a lot of garbage music on one particular radio station that was participating in Pay for Play, that *I sure* wouldn't have missed, had it never been played. I just wonder how much the PD was pocketing under the table. You're fooling yourself if you don't think Pay for Play didn't (or doesn't) exist. I was definitely aware of it between 2013 and 2019. I still wonder if it exists today. I guess I was naive to think someone would come on here and admit it's still taking place.
Because you brought it up. You believe a crime was taking place, you apparently no longer work there, and you feel it's a problem. If it's such a problem, then you should report it. You have recourse. However, you may be wrong about what you witnessed, and that's also important.
That's your opinion. Radio is not in the music criticism business. On the other hand I hear fans of artists complain that a lot of great music never gets played. It's the job of promotion people to represent their artists and get music past gatekeepers and in front of potential fans. There are lots of ways to do that. Every time a radio station plays a new song by a new artist, they're taking a risk. There are no rules about taste in music. People like a lot of garbage music. It happens all the time. Radio stations air commercials for bad products. They also run infomercials for questionable remedies. Most of it is legal. Music is no different.
You're also fooling yourself if you don't think money is involved in just about everything. Remember record stores? I can tell you that money was involved in the music that was displayed in the store window, where certain records were placed in the store, and what music was played in the store as you shopped. Everything had a price. That's not limited to music. Grocery stores take money for where products are placed in the store.
As I've said, there is payola in satellite and streaming radio. The law only applies to broadcast radio, so all of the promo money that used to go to broadcast radio is now going to digital. Nothing is being done about it. The fact that Rolling Stone only talks about money in broadcast radio and ignores what's happening in digital tells me that they're biased.
You think what you saw was a problem. On the other hand, perhaps it brought attention to music that otherwise would not have been played. You call something garbage music, but that shows your personal bias against some music. Shouldn't that artist have access to the public airwaves too, even if you don't like it? Think of all the music that we'd never have heard if it wasn't for promotion. That's what these promotional campaigns are all about.
I remember at several stations over the years having to sign an agreement which beyond no-'Payola/Plugola' essentially stated; if one personally suspected something illegal, in violation of FCC rules or company polices, you were obligated to report it. If at the time Brian was that sure something against the rules was being committed, by not reporting would be guilty of enabling the behavior.
As I said there are lots of legal ways to get money from record labels, and I suspect that's what was going on here. Buying spins only matters if you're in a big market and are at a popular station. It seems unlikely that a station that mainly plays music that's paid for is going to be popular. Looking at it from the point of view of the record label, why would I give money to someone to play a record on one station. Labels can do legal deals with the big chains and get more spins. That's what most labels do. The legal options deliver more attention, and that's the goal of the promotion people. Not providing welfare to underpaid radio people.
haha. Then why have music testing focus groups (giving one the ability to criticize songs that they don't find appealing, or would tune out if heard on a radio station)?
I was aware of the practice prior to singing the waiver (I'm 80% sure the GM even knew it was taking place prior to the issued waiver). I've seen plenty of shady behavior at radio stations over the years - Pay for Play, big deal. My question is a simple one. I just wonder if it still exists in today's 2022 radio environment. Feel free to debate the ethics of it all you want. While I was in it, working in radio was never ever squeaky clean (Carol Miller's book will attest to that).
That's a very different thing. That's giving the AUDIENCE the ability to criticize songs, and they do that all day. The goal of radio is to find consensus songs that the audience likes, so the station can attract a big audience to sell to advertisers. It helps to know what the listeners like. We can also get that information from streaming charts, and labels use that information to promote their new music as well. Of course if all we did was play the streaming Top 50, we'd only play two or three artists.
But as I've said, people in radio shouldn't have personal biases about music, because they'll miss big hits. Lots of radio stations passed on songs like Love Me Do and Please Please Me by the Beatles in 1962 & 63 before they appeared on Ed Sullivan because of personal bias.
As I said, legal paid airplay still exists, but it's done on the corporate level. All of the major owners have new artist development programs where their stations play new songs by developing artists to get response from listeners. SiriusXM does the same thing. I have heard that Apple Music also does this on their curated stations. It's far more efficient & effective than going to individual stations, and it's legal. The money doesn't go to people, but to the company. Why anyone would give money to someone at a single station is beyond me. Nothing gained by that, unless the promo person just likes to throw money away. Plus both the radio station and the promo person risk getting caught. Payola is a federal crime. There are better ways to get music played.
- Status