Performance "right" VS. publicity

[CCMDJ]

While we've all probably read dozens of posts on other forums and articles in the trades about this, I'm curious as to our take on this side of the Religious/CC board.

Does radio (as MusicFirst Coalition would have us believe) really NOT cut-the-mustard anymore in terms of selling songs/downloads/cd's? Is it necessary to establish a performance 'right' so that the labels & artists will have another source of income? Or, is this simply another misguided attempt by a recording industry that was caught asleep-at-the wheel when their business model changed, and is simply trying to scramble for $$.

By the way, I get that there's a significant amount of $$ here, not so much from the monthly payments by radio stations, but by solving the trade dispute between the US and other nations, who won't pay U.S. artists performance royalties because we don't reciprocate for their artists or ours. And I also get that (contrary to what's being portrayed on Capitol Hill) that most artists will only see 45% of monies collected unless they actually own the Sound Recording Copyright, since 50% goes to copyright owner, 45% to featured artist, 2.5% to non-featured artists (bgv's), and 2.5% to non-featured musicians (players.) By the way, most artists do NOT own their song copyrights. It should be noted that there ARE some stations that won't be able to absorb ANY extra outlay of cash in their already 'cut to-the-bone' financial structure, and others that probably could make the payments, albeit at the expense of diverting the dollars from somewhere else (in the case of our genre, ministry.)

Stations are already having to pay a 'performance right' (through SoundExchange) for all the songs they stream online, in addition to paying writers, composers, and publishers (through ASCAP, SESAC, and BMI), so in a sense the 'right' has already been established by Congress.

Here's my question to this forum. Should radio have to pay artists/labels to play their music, or are artists/labels already 'paid' by the free promotion provided when songs are played, backsold, and promoted on a radio station?

I have heard opinions on both sides of the issue, not surprisingly with Label heads saying it's a 'right' and radio saying 'no it's not!' Artists and song-trackers are stuck somewhere in the middle not wanting to bite the hand of either group that feeds them (radio who plays their songs, and labels who pay their salaries.)

I know a number of CCM leaders are meeting next week to discuss this, and what the response of Christian music broadcasters should be.

What's your take???

 

[rbrucecarter5]

What's your take???

The recording industry is killing the radio goose that has laid the golden egg for decades. Christian radio will be especially hard hit, because margins are so low to begin with. This may drive quite a few stations off the air, especially low rated niche ones - and if nobody hears the music on the radio, who will buy it? The whole thing is nothing but greed on the part of the recording industry, faced with declining revenues and fierce competition from illegal free downloads, and people not buying CD's for one good song and 17 bad ones any more - they just download the one song from iTunes. They need to amend their business model or face the very real likelihood they may make music radio irrelevant to the consumer, who will instead be streaming independent artists who aren't signed and making up their playlist that way. I already have about 10 to 15% of my iPod filled that way - the stuff I find is really good. The recording industry is losing their control over the consumer, and it frightens them. What they don't realize is that you have to prime the pump sometimes to get water to come out, so whetting people's appetites with free radio has been a business model that has worked for decades. Now the recording companies need to follow the consumer to iTunes, advertiser supported models, and get away from the "album / CD" concept that is about the only thing that is dying, other than their ability to stifle competition from unsigned artists. They can quickly sign these new artists to electronic only distribution rights, and can sign many times the artists they have now - no need to be so selective if you don't have to roll out a pressing of tens of thousands of CDs. Recording companies can also make enormous revenue on the concert tours of major artists, that revenue won't go away any time soon, any more than the advent of television stopped people from going to movies.

Just a few ramblings ---

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I suspect that all we have at this point "is just a few ramblings". If you want cold, hard facts on the value of music, and the effectiveness of having a song played on the radio, where do you go to get facts. Obviously the various stakeholders in this fight have paid for some surveys, and surveys tend to "prove" what the person or group who paid for the survey wants to prove.

Here is my rambling, and it's worth exactly what you paid me for the right to read it:I go against the grain. I realize to a lot of people, Radio equals Music. My take is that like the guy who never goes to the gym but sits in front of the TV every night munching snacks, wonders why when he gets into the ball game at the annual company picnic he can't run with the rest of the crowd, radio has sat around munching on two snack foods: grinding out hours and hours of music, or grinding out hours and hours of bone-headed talk radio. Radio has lost it's muscle. Radio has become flabby. Radio is Samson with a haircut!

The music industry has it figured out. Radio CAN'T do anything else. They have to pay us what we want for our music, or they DIE. Radio is addicted to the snack food of playing record after record after record. Radio has no Plan B in case Plan A does not work as planned.

Get-chur check book out, look at the man and ask: "How much?"

 

[radiocph]

No more music = more airtime for preaching tapes and other like programming ...

 

[rbrucecarter5]

They have to pay us what we want for our music, or they DIE. Radio is addicted to the snack food of playing record after record after record. Radio has no Plan B in case Plan A does not work as planned.

Get-chur check book out, look at the man and ask: "How much?"

Greed - pure and simple. If that happens, radio will be dominated by indie artists who want the free exposure while today's mainstream artists go on a financial "diet" because nobody will know their music any more.

 

[justalurker]

Stations paying for music and being paid to carry programs leads to more programs.
Oh, they may be non-comm ... so the program payment is sharing donations or underwritten.
If dollar-a-holler radio keeps the station on the air and music costs the station guess what wins?

 

[nitnitr]

I'm going to agree with CCMDJ on the fact that most people who download music are not going to download entire albums, or purchase a CD from a store for one or two songs they like off the album. It probably costs a little less to produce EP's with fewer songs, but maybe of better quality, than a full CD. Still, there is the risk that the consumer may only like a single song off an EP too.

Now more to the topic on how it impacts the Christian Music Industry. I know of no Christian artists that are making huge amounts of income with music purchases or royalties, and for that matter, touring either. Does that mean that they should get more money from terrestrial stations playing their recordings? With performance royalties, it appears to be more of a power grab by the recording industry to generate revenue for themselves and for the licensing agencies to gain more influence over the recordings. Oftentimes, Christian artists work with or for their local church. Then they are on the road touring, in the studio recording, and also writing new material as it comes along, not to mention spend some time with their families. I do feel for them, but if more money actually got to the artists themselves, then I might be more supportive.

The case was made that performance royalties are already in place for streaming stations and satellite stations, and so, following the trend, it is only natural to expand that to terrestrial radio. I believe it could go the other way as well. Why not forget the performance royalties for all forms of radio, and in the process remove another licensing agency; SoundExchange? Ridding the radio industry of regulation/reporting that is already so regulated, would be a step in the right direction, in my opinion.

Both the Recording and Broadcast Industry need to take a hard look at their business models, and really see what the consumer is looking for. Easier said than done, but as more people turn to the WWW for music downloads and streaming radio stations, terrestrial radio could be in for some serious trouble, and Christian music stations in particular, because of the tight finances of most Christian stations.

 

[rbrucecarter5]

I'm going to agree with CCMDJ on the fact that most people who download music are not going to download entire albums, or purchase a CD from a store for one or two songs they like off the album.

Hey - if CCMDJ wants to try to squeeze $2 per month out of CCM radio stations to supplement a meager income and, in the process, wreck Christian radio for everybody else, I guess he is free to do it. I said it before and I'll say it again: greed, pure and simple, and it kills the goose that has, for decades, been laying the golden egg. If I were presently in radio, I'd shut down or sell the station to PBS rather than give in to extortion like this. I don't have the time or desire to keep up with the ______ paperwork, much less bleed my own tight finances dry, to support this type of cr@p. If I were streaming, rather than pay those fees, I'd have shut off the stream. A nice service I would have liked to provide to people in remote locations or countries, but I don't agree to extortion and can't afford it anyway.

 

[nitnitr]

If I were streaming, rather than pay those fees, I'd have shut off the stream. A nice service I would have liked to provide to people in remote locations or countries, but I don't agree to extortion and can't afford it anyway.

Fortunately, my licensing for streaming is not prohibitive at the moment, but the fact remains that it could change in the future. If my streaming station had thousands of listeners, the costs would be too much to bear without resorting to commercials or sponsorships. Donations to independent streaming stations is virtually non existant.

I agree that the record companies are in this fight for more of the piece of the pie, and webcasters got hit with this performance royalty issue several years ago. As a webcaster, I forsee that we'll be on the warpath again against the CRB and SoundExchange in the not too distant future. This is why I say that we do away with all performance royalties, and get rid of SoundExchange.

For those that live in remote areas, streaming stations do provide a service, but just for clarification, most listeners are listening at the office during the day, even in the Christian genre. Though I have been out of terrestrial radio for many years, I find satisifation that the station I operate provides a service on the web that can easily be accessed at home or the office. It also keeps my hand in the radio game a bit, and is a blessing to the listeners, based on comments to the station, and also to me. All praise to God!

 

[TheBigA]

Why not forget the performance royalties for all forms of radio, and in the process remove another licensing agency; SoundExchange? Ridding the radio industry of regulation/reporting that is already so regulated, would be a step in the right direction, in my opinion.

I agree. If the public, who are the fans of the music, doesn't feel it's worth buying, then why should broadcasters pay for it? Perhaps the public is right, and music SHOULD be free. Free for them, and free for broadcasters, regardless of media, digital or analog. The musicians, artists, and writers need to fix their industry. Simply charging other industries a royalty doesn't fix their industry.

I think those who are challenging the decisions of the CRB are on the right track. SoundExchange is a monopoly, and is clearly operating in ways that is bad for consumers.