Payola - the final word on #1

[joshzz]

As I mentioned in a previous message, it is not the best song that hits the #1 spot on the charts but rather the record label that pays the most to push a song to the top of the charts.

It has always been about payola.
People tell me that it ended with Alan Freed. It did not.

Anyone can make the charts. It just takes money and depending on how bad the song, will determine how much money you will have to pay.

Get a bunch of farm animals together and throw a little ditty behind them. Call it "Chicken and Friends".
Pay the top CHR stations in NY and LA each ten million to play, and you've got another Disco Duck! #1

I see things from an owner's perspective. I don't take payola but I'm contacted by numerous bands looking for exposure that will tell me all about their horror stories and the cost to be heard.

 

[TheBigA]

Anyone can make the charts. It just takes money and depending on how bad the song, will determine how much money you will have to pay.

And your point is? While we're on the subject, do you think the Grammy goes to the best song?

Do you know how much a #1 record is worth to a performer or a songwriter?

It takes money to make money. You want to fly on a private jet and live in a big mansion?

Meanwhile, MusicFirst is saying that there is no value in free airplay. Who's lying?

 

[oldies76]

As I mentioned in a previous message, it is not the best song that hits the #1 spot on the charts but rather the record label that pays the most to push a song to the top of the charts.

It has always been about payola.

And the "Billboard" execs say.............................

 

[davideduardo]

As I mentioned in a previous message, it is not the best song that hits the #1 spot on the charts but rather the record label that pays the most to push a song to the top of the charts. It has always been about payola. People tell me that it ended with Alan Freed. It did not.

Let's see... Alan Freed was in New York, and was also a show promoter. And it was the 50's.

Let's keep in mind that there have been, going back 50 years, thousands of radio stations. In most of the smaller markets, at least until digital delivery was possible, stations paid to get new music... either from the labels (which had subscription services in the 50's into the 70's) or a service like TM's Hit Disks or Radio Express' RadioPlay services.

If most stations pay for new music on one hand, their PDs certainly are not getting greased on the other!

And for most current-based formats, the era of the DJ that picked their own songs to play died in the early 60's on most formats.

Anyone can make the charts. It just takes money and depending on how bad the song, will determine how much money you will have to pay.

Let's assume that there have been some record companies that did reward airplay. The fact is, in the decades since FM became the leading audience radio medium, there are just too many stations for a programmer to risk ratings by playing songs that are not the best.

Get a bunch of farm animals together and throw a little ditty behind them. Call it "Chicken and Friends". Pay the top CHR stations in NY and LA each ten million to play, and you've got another Disco Duck! #1

Disco duck was a novelty song by a DJ in Memphis, and it came out at a very appropriate moment... the case with most hit novelty songs... to be one of those exceptions to the rule. To say that "Duck" as an artificial construct based on illicit activities is disingenuous and illustrates a lack of understanding of why offbeat songs and novety ditties pop up as hits with considerable regularity.

I see things from an owner's perspective. I don't take payola but I'm contacted by numerous bands looking for exposure that will tell me all about their horror stories and the cost to be heard.

In any market worth trying to get airplay in, current based stations generally do research and know within 100 spins or so whether a song is worth playing. And in PPM markets, we can get a service that allows us to see if there is tune out related to any song over repeated plays.

What you are talking about is quite obviously a limited practice if it even still exists.

If you are looking for a cause for distorted charts, look further at the practices like giving free product to record stores (when those existed) in exchange for reporting as "hot" when radio stations check sales as part of determining airplay.

 

[Talk_Dude]

As I mentioned in a previous message, it is not the best song that hits the #1 spot on the charts but rather the record label that pays the most to push a song to the top of the charts.

It has always been about payola.
People tell me that it ended with Alan Freed. It did not.

Anyone can make the charts. It just takes money and depending on how bad the song, will determine how much money you will have to pay.

Get a bunch of farm animals together and throw a little ditty behind them. Call it "Chicken and Friends".
Pay the top CHR stations in NY and LA each ten million to play, and you've got another Disco Duck! #1

I see things from an owner's perspective. I don't take payola but I'm contacted by numerous bands looking for exposure that will tell me all about their horror stories and the cost to be heard.

You have a real uphill fight convincing the folks in here of the truth. It's not enough to say that payola is still around (and you're right, it is). You need to point out how it has shifted from being payoffs to individual DJs and is now corporate money being laundered through multiple sources to get to the few hitmakers who are calling the shots. It has gone from a small-time envelope full of cash to large scale payoff disguised as fees, royalties, stock options, and a myriad of other channels.

 

[joshzz]

My friends it's all about payola. ALL Payola! Sadly, it's all about money. The idea that a song is just so good, it's gotta be #1, is all a myth.

The reps at small record labels are grateful we play their artists but to get airplay at major market, Arbitron Rated Station is gonna cost you big time. There is no Santa Claus and there are no chart makers looking out for the good of music.

Listen to this artist. He should be charting on Billboard. Our listeners love the song. Some compare it to Michael Buble's Hit, Haven't Met You Yet.

Call the top AC station in LA, NY, Philly, etc. and ask why it's not being played &see how far you get.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrQNM-56jbs

I've received many great songs that will never see a Billboard Chart. The charts have nothing to do with the worthiness of a song. Here's another great song with a more rock feel that never made the charts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvaycAiTzj0

Thank you Talk Dude for helping me share ths info.

 

[joshzz]

Meanwhile, MusicFirst is saying that there is no value in free airplay. Who's lying?

Kanye West and the Dixie Chicks have the answer to that question.

 

[davideduardo]

You have a real uphill fight convincing the folks in here of the truth. It's not enough to say that payola is still around (and you're right, it is). You need to point out how it has shifted from being payoffs to individual DJs and is now corporate money being laundered through multiple sources to get to the few hitmakers who are calling the shots. It has gone from a small-time envelope full of cash to large scale payoff disguised as fees, royalties, stock options, and a myriad of other channels.

Let's see... none of the major record labels is making money if you look at the last 5 years. And none of the major radio companies with publicly traded shares is selling for even half of the share price of 5 years ago. Radio stations do not currently pay royalties to record companies. And advertising music on the radio is legal, but, unfortunately, very uncommon these days to to the lack of profits at the record companies...

 

[davideduardo]

The reps at small record labels are grateful we play their artists but to get airplay at major market, Arbitron Rated Station is gonna cost you big time.

There are dozens, maybe hundreds, of songs I thought should have been hits that weren't. But that's because I don't represent the hundreds of thousands of listeners of a major market station.

As an anecdote, I would mention that before I did my first music test long ago, I decided I would guess the scores of the first 100 or so songs on the test list. I was more than 20% off on 80% of the songs, and we were playing a list that was nearly half made up of stiffs. I was programming what I thought was right, not what the bulk of listeners wanted to hear. By not playing what I liked we began 22 years of #1 ratings in a top 15 market, too. Oh, that was the place where we had a sign in programming that said, "the record promoter is not your friend. The record promoter will do you harm.."

You are letting personal taste and opinion reign supreme and thus your only answer to why songs you don't like becomming hits is that something improper must be happening.

 

[Talk_Dude]

You have a real uphill fight convincing the folks in here of the truth. It's not enough to say that payola is still around (and you're right, it is). You need to point out how it has shifted from being payoffs to individual DJs and is now corporate money being laundered through multiple sources to get to the few hitmakers who are calling the shots. It has gone from a small-time envelope full of cash to large scale payoff disguised as fees, royalties, stock options, and a myriad of other channels.

Let's see... none of the major record labels is making money if you look at the last 5 years. And none of the major radio companies with publicly traded shares is selling for even half of the share price of 5 years ago. Radio stations do not currently pay royalties to record companies. And advertising music on the radio is legal, but, unfortunately, very uncommon these days to to the lack of profits at the record companies...

Can you name a major record label that isn't a subsidiary or business unit of a large corporation? Are you aware of how corporate bookkeeping and legal tax avoidance works, with profits from one business unit or subsidiary transferred to another to minimize tax liabilities?

Did anyone in here ever read either of these books, especially the first one? Hit Men: Power Brokers and Fast Money Inside the Music Business and Backstage Passes and Backstabbing Bastards.

Unless you worked in the record industry and radio both for over 20 years in a senior management position in major corporations, I'll believe the revelations in Hit Men: Power Brokers and Fast Money Inside the Music Business ahead of the recollections of former DJ's.

 

[firepoint525]

I remember at a station where I once worked, we received something on an indie label. Our music director liked it, but on the postage-paid return card, he wrote that he doesn't play indies. I don't even know what it was, because I never got to hear it, but this was a format that I didn't particularly like, anyway.

Meanwhile, at an earlier station where I had worked, we indeed did play the indies. In fact, some of them became "hits" at our station! But we were a teeniny little market, and the station was only a 500-watt daytimer AM station.

 

[joshzz]

Thanks again Talk Dude for your help.

We're not trying to hurt people's feelings and they need to understand that.

Regarding Indie Artist submissions to major market, Arbitron Rated Radio Stations. All those CDs (thousands per station per year) get thrown in the trash.

Like my friend, a major gospel artist on a major label once told me, "Josh, there isn't a song on any of the charts that did it without payola." (he then laughed)

 

[davideduardo]

Regarding Indie Artist submissions to major market, Arbitron Rated Radio Stations. All those CDs (thousands per station per year) get thrown in the trash.

Depending on the format, for every song that gets added, there can be 10, 20 or more songs that don't get added.

Keep in mind that programmers generally think "easiest familiarization process" for new adds. That means that, given a stack of songs that all are "possible adds" it is natural to look first at core artists, then at newer artists who have had several recent hits and few "misses" and finally at unknown artists or those not known in the format.

Of course, just to get to that point, probably 80% of the songs have been eliminated because they don't fit the format, they suck, they are badly recorded, they are garage productions copied onto an Office Depot CD, etc., etc.

Lack of familiarity is an audience killer for most formats, so big name artists win over unknown ones. It's tought to break a new act, but keep in mind radio is in the advertising business, not the music sales business.

In many adult formats that appeal to 25-44, 35-54, etc., and which play some currents, there may only be 3 or 4 adds a month. Experience has proven that more adds equals lower ratings. Faster moving formats, generally younger appealing, will still only add a couple of songs a week.

Like my friend, a major gospel artist on a major label once told me, "Josh, there isn't a song on any of the charts that did it without payola." (he then laughed)

Lying is not a quality I would associate with a gospel artist; this sounds like one of a number of excuses for a run of the mill stiff.

 

[davideduardo]

Can you name a major record label that isn't a subsidiary or business unit of a large corporation? Are you aware of how corporate bookkeeping and legal tax avoidance works, with profits from one business unit or subsidiary transferred to another to minimize tax liabilities?

Most of the music business belongs to the 5 majors. Whether they do creative accounting or not, the fact is that the business is not basically profitable... thus the quest for additional revenue streams like royalties on streaming and the proposal for the same on AM and FM broadcast stations.

Did anyone in here ever read either of these books, especially the first one?Hit Men: Power Brokers and Fast Money Inside the Music Business, Backstage Passes and Backstabbing Bastards.

I've read and have all of those and others. They talk about a bygone time when radio was about the only source for music, there were no downloads, no Napster, Kazaa or peer-to-peer, no iPods, etc., etc., etc. Today, music sales are much, much lower, and most "record store" (the term "record" is even an anachronism now) chains are gone.

Unless you worked in the record industry and radio both for over 20 years in a senior management position in major corporations, I'll believe the revelations in ahead of the recollections of former DJ's.

Most of us at one time or another were a "DJ" or did some on-air work. I realized at about age 16 that I sucked at it, and went on to own or manage stations and such. I also owned a label at one point and even did syndication. I'll trust my own impressions as opposed to an author's interpretation of what they think Joe Isgro did 25 or 30 years ago or so (a case in which the judge tossed the charges and ruled that the prosecutor was guilty of gross misconduct)...

 

[Talk_Dude]

Can you name a major record label that isn't a subsidiary or business unit of a large corporation? Are you aware of how corporate bookkeeping and legal tax avoidance works, with profits from one business unit or subsidiary transferred to another to minimize tax liabilities?

Most of the music business belongs to the 5 majors. Whether they do creative accounting or not, the fact is that the business is not basically profitable... thus the quest for additional revenue streams like royalties on streaming and the proposal for the same on AM and FM broadcast stations.

These are the top four record label companies:

#1 is Universal Music Group, 35.12% market share in U.S.

Their labels include: Geffen Records, Island Def Jam Music Group, Motown Records, Verve Music Group, Decca Music Group.
Their artists include: Gwen Stefani, Elton John, Jimi Hendrix, Kanye West, Shania Twain.
They are a wholly owned subsidiary of international French media conglomerate Vivendi.

#2 is Sony Music Entertainment, Inc., with 22.79% market share.

Their labels include: Arista Records, Columbia Records, Jive Records, RCA Records.
Their artists include: Alicia Keys, Usher, Chris Brown, AC/DC, Leona Lewis.
It is controlled by controlled by Sony Corporation of America, a subsidiary of Sony Corporation of Japan.

#3 is Warner Music Group, with 21.12% percent market share.

Their labels include: Atlantic Records, Warner Bros. Records.
Their artists include Madonna, R.E.M., Green Day, Eric Clapton.
Until recently, it also controlled Time-Warner cable and other companies.

EMI Group, PLC, with 8.35% percent market share.

Their labels include: Capitol Records, Virgin, Blue Note.
Their artists include: Coldplay, Katy Perry, The Rolling Stones, Lenny Kravitz.
It is wholly owned by Terra Firma Capital Partners, which owns 20 or so other companies.

The other 12.61% is shared amongst the smaller players.

Two thirds of the recordings sold in the United States are on labels owned by foreign corporations. If you truly believe that those corporations are totally honest and forthright in their bookkeeping practices and aren't creating "paper losses" on their books for American subsidiaries that would have to pay American taxes on their profits and shifting the profits to subsidiaries in companies that located in countries with more favorable tax climates, please send me a private message. I have some swamp land I'd like to show you, plus I have a great investment opportunity for you regarding a bridge in New York City.

The same goes for believing that there isn't any "synergy" between the record labels and the other companies in the same conglomerates. And, for believing that individuals who are major stockholders in multiple companies don't know how to keep their own bread well buttered. If you don't think those other things are commonplace, then say "Hi" to Santa when he comes down your chimney next Christmas.

 

[davideduardo]

Two thirds of the recordings sold in the United States are on labels owned by foreign corporations.

So? About the only GM division that makes money is in China... 65% of HP's sales are generated outside the US. And a high percentage of large "US" corportation shares are foreign owned. So what big company is not global... or, in truth, "foreign?"

If you truly believe that those corporations are totally honest and forthright in their bookkeeping practices and aren't creating "paper losses" on their books for American subsidiaries that would have to pay American taxes on their profits and shifting the profits to subsidiaries in companies that located in countries with more favorable tax climates, please send me a private message.

You mean just like Google? No company goes out to find the highest tax rate. This is no different than my friends who have moved out of California to avoid the high taxes. If one has the choice, the most favorable environment is picked. Music companies are not different.

The same goes for believing that there isn't any "synergy" between the record labels and the other companies in the same conglomerates.

"Synergy" is a word that is seldom overestimated in its impact. OK, so Sony Pictures may get the inside track on a Sony Music artist for a movie role... but the synergies between, let's say, Vivendi's book division and music are pretty limited. And the synergies are certainly not worth the investment in a declining business.

In case you did not notice, the newer model is 360° integration... one company handles tours, recording, licencing, etc. Live nation is doing this quite successfully and they are breaking the model of the record company and independent artist management. Why? Because the new model makes money, and the old one does not.

Pure music plays are not looking to be the future. To get away from the US, I look at RCA Argentina. In 1970, they had over 400 employees, a large factory and a promotion staff of about 25. Columbia had 200 employees, and subcontracted manufacturing but had another 25 in promotion. Today, Sony BMG (RCA and Columbia) has an office that does not cover a whole floor of a moderate size office structure and has 3 or 4 people in promotion and marketing. That sure looks like a changed industry to me... and one that can't afford its own operation, let alone getting involved in others.

And, for believing that individuals who are major stockholders in multiple companies don't know how to keep their own bread well buttered.

And what pure play radio company has any significant number of shares held by any of the holding companies for the larger music companies? Or the opposite?

 

[joshzz]

Keep in mind that programmers generally think "easiest familiarization process" for new adds. That means that, given a stack of songs that all are "possible adds" it is natural to look first at core artists, then at newer artists who have had several recent hits and few "misses" and finally at unknown artists or those not known in the format.

David, I respect your point of view but your description of how music is chosen by PDs applies only to small market stations and stations that are a rimshot from a major market.

As Radio Dude and I have been stressing, it's pay for play in the major markets. You pay you get played.

We are trying to explain to you how the industry works. It's not a matter of opinion. This is the way it is.

 

[davideduardo]

David, I respect your point of view but your description of how music is chosen by PDs applies only to small market stations and stations that are a rimshot from a major market.

A "rimshot" is a station outside or at the edge of a metro trying to "shoot" a signal in to serve a metro; the fact that you misuse this common term indicates to me that you are similarly lacking in knowledge of how the vast majority of stations are programmed.

While there are misfits in every walk of life, 99.9% of radio people are decent and law abiding just as most investment advisors are not like Bernie Madoff.

As Radio Dude and I have been stressing, it's pay for play in the major markets. You pay you get played.

As I said, few would risk their jobs, ratings, criminal prosecution and self-respect by taking illegal monies.

We are trying to explain to you how the industry works. It's not a matter of opinion. This is the way it is.

How many major market current-based stations have you programmed?

That's not how the industry works, save the rare exception, and your comments, as usual, offend the tens of thousands of honest professionals in radio.

 

[firepoint525]

It's true enough that money, marketing, promotions, etc., often determines what gets to be #1, but there are a few high profile examples of hits that bypassed the usual marketing promotional tactics, and became hits anyway.

A few examples:

In the '60s, often times the B-side would become the actual hit because that was the one that djs played. Best example of this: "Unchained Melody" by the Righteous Brothers.

Songs that became hits because of regular radio airplay, but not pushed by the promoters. Best example of this: "Nights in White Satin" by the Moody Blues.

And then there were all those that became hits simply because of listener demand. Best examples of this: all those early '80s "misses" that were reissued in the late '80s, thus finally becoming hits about five years after their initial releases. We had a whole thread about this on the '80s/'90s board not too long ago.

Of course, the flipside to all of this are the examples, far too numerous to mention, of records that had all the promotion in the world, yet still failed to catch on with listeners. Billy Joel once said, "if you force it, it's no good." Gary DeCarlo tried to have a serious music career, yet only his throwaway novelty song "Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye" became a fluke hit for his studio group Steam.

 

[oldies76]

And then there were all those that became hits simply because of listener demand. Best examples of this: all those early '80s "misses" that were reissued in the late '80s, thus finally becoming hits about five years after their initial releases.

The "What I Like About You" and "I Melt With You" nonsense?? "Talking in Your Sleep" is a much better song anyways.