Radio - dead and loving it (sorry Mel Brooks)

[davideduardo]

I don't really understand this whole thing. Why did they decide that performers suddenly have the right to additional compensation and who gave them the right to decide? You would think that online services would just have to pay a blanket fee to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC, just like the broadcasters and that would be the end of it.

ASCAP, BMI and SESAC do not benefit the performance, just the writers and composers.The only case where a performer gets any payment from one of the three is if they also wrote the song they sing.

The underlying reason for the DCMA is that digital copies of audio or video can be re-copied over and over with no degradation, and easily distributed. A digital copy is essentially like handing consumers a master disk back in the 70's. So there was a rethinking of the whole performance copyright thing based on the new reality. (Caveat: extreme simplification)

 

[davideduardo]

I notice it is NOT disputed that the ratings changed overnight - electronic monitoring may be more modern but the effect was still problematic, the data changed OVERNIGHT. So if your teenager runs off and gets married OVERNIGHT to the guy she just met on the web the day before, you would find equally logical balance to that situation as well no doubt.

I'm not the one who wanted to do a lawsuit by the way, just the messenger. But apparently they just didn't understand that sudden shifts in data are not a problem.

The sudden shifts were definitely anticipated by the folks at the larger broadcast companies. Arbitron had various committees made up of members of the advertising and radio broadcast communities who watched the PPM develop from the 2002 "live" tests in Philly and onwards. We received monthly PPM data we could analyze and compare with the diary data, both for Philadelphia and for Houston several years later.

In other words, we had a good picture of what was going to happen when the service rolled out as currency. And we worked with our programming people and our research efforts to try to determine what was needed once PPM went real time.

Keep in mind that the PPM was requested... "demanded" some would say... by the advertising community. They wanted faster delivery of results, greater granularity and electronic measurement such as television afforded. It did not matter that the new service would almost double the cost for stations in the Top 50 markets.

As BigA says, the PPM reveals the defect of any full or partial recall based survey such as the diary. Memory favors big shows and high profile stations and dings stations used secondarily by a listener, as well as less established stations and personalities.

Once you have seen diaries with listening to daytime AMs at 10 PM or personalities who have been dead for a decade or who are on another station, you know how fragile memory based surveys are. No statistical sample is perfect. But the PPM is definitely better than the diary.

 

[semoochie]

ASCAP, BMI and SESAC do not benefit the performance, just the writers and composers.The only case where a performer gets any payment from one of the three is if they also wrote the song they sing.

The underlying reason for the DCMA is that digital copies of audio or video can be re-copied over and over with no degradation, and easily distributed. A digital copy is essentially like handing consumers a master disk back in the 70's. So there was a rethinking of the whole performance copyright thing based on the new reality. (Caveat: extreme simplification)

Yes but how did performers get into the chain? They weren't for a hundred years or so. Why do they suddenly have the right to be compensated beyond their original payments? Could this be retroactive? Could Nancy Sinatra and Frank Jr. ask for compensation for their father's songs?

 

[b-turner]

I feel PPM has greatly increased the accuracy and timeliness of radio ratings. With the diary the broadcaster had much more opportunity for manipulating and from the diary holder, the chance for bias and error was virtually eliminated. The drastic changes caused us to assess the way we did things and made us more responsive to listeners. We learned things. While not perfect, it seems PPM is much more accurate and realistic as a result. Timeliness is a real factor because of the ability to get the results to everyone so quickly. In the diary days, still used in many markets, the information was months old when generated.

The station I manage, while in a top 10 market, isn't reliant on PPM so we don't participate. Perhaps for those not in a PPM market or involved in radio, some of you that are could share how PPM works. From my position as an outsider looking in, the added expense is well worth it as it is a truer look at the market. If our station relied on ratings for income, I'd urge my owner to participate.

At least now the need for station moniker, dial position, your name and time do not have to be repeated over and over and over as much for on air jocks. The old tricks are no longer as effective.

 

[b-turner]

I'd like to see those Sound Exchange dollars going in to researching how to build a program that can inhibit copying of music. There must be some encoding that could be used to degrade or make copying difficult. That would be an endless battle but it seems the current system penalizes those who promote the music. I realize artists need compensation but the current system seems wrongheaded and self-defeating. I'd love to see an alternative.

My former owner charted his plan several years ago if such fees were charged for over the air broadcasts as they are in other nations. His plan was to charge for airtime to air song title and artist or to have it scroll across the radio. In other words, sell advertising with that advertising identifying the song and artist. It seems that had been thought of already.

 

[boombox4]

RE: performers and royalties:

Actual performers (who aren't part of the writing process) can get a "mechanical" royalty, depending on their contract with the recording company. But I think it's dependent on sales of that particular recording, not airplay or other public performance.

Whomever gets a songwriter's royalty money after a songwriter dies is up to the will of the songwriter. It's an intellectual property.

 

[TheBigA]

I'd like to see those Sound Exchange dollars going in to researching how to build a program that can inhibit copying of music.

I agree, but unfortunately SoundExchange doesn't see that as part of their mission. I know most of the key players, and they're lawyers, not technologists. And the way they describe it, the royalty has nothing to do with the copying of music. They see the royalty as an ownership right. So even if copying was prevented, they'd still demand their royalty. Most of the folks I see at SoundExchange are too young to remember the debate that brought about DMCA, so they don't really recognize that they got this royalty as compensation for lost sales. That never comes up at all in the discussion.

 

[howdareu]

Maybe we still misunderstand so I will clarify again....

I am only the messenger, not invested in the situation, just reporting.

 

[davideduardo]

Maybe we still misunderstand so I will clarify again....

I am only the messenger, not invested in the situation, just reporting.

I'd bet that threats of lawsuits outnumber suits actually filed by something like 100 to 1.

On face value, the idea of a jock suing Arbitron is ridiculously amusing.

 

[howdareu]

At least a lawsuit would be more interesting than listening to 90% of AM or 95% of FM, good god they need something to attract listeners!

 

[davideduardo]

At least a lawsuit would be more interesting than listening to 90% of AM or 95% of FM, good god they need something to attract listeners!

Considering that 90% of stations are probably not targeting you, that would be a rather normal situation, today or well into the past.

 

[howdareu]

You would be right they aren't targeting me.

I demand substance, entertainment value and talent.

You are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.

 

[TheBigA]

I demand substance, entertainment value and talent.

And you want it for free. You get what you pay for.

 

[davideduardo]

You would be right they aren't targeting me.

I demand substance, entertainment value and talent.

You are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.

Wild guess, which better describes why no station targets you: you are over 55.

 

[howdareu]

Really? Is that the excuse you and other forum thugs use when you don't get your way?

You must be an old geezer maaaaaan. (doobie joint later no doubt).

Sad. Radio has to appeal to people like you instead of something better explains why music stations pay listeners to be a caller and news stations have to cover the latest killer to get people interested. Life in the toilet.

No wonder the commercials are gross medical products that repel listeners, or sales gimmicks from retailers trying to sell crap only the young & dumb are stupid enough to buy. You deserve each other.

It used to be tv and radio brought families together but now tears them apart. The devil is proud.

 

[TheBigA]

Really? Is that the excuse you and other forum thugs use when you don't get your way?

"Thugs?" Who's the one who launched this thread? Seems like you brought it on yourself, and now can't take it.

Like my pappy used to say: If you don't like the heat, stay outta the kitchen.

 

[howdareu]

Just saying the obvious.

Now go listen to your masters on the dial, sell your soul for whatever they say and pretend crap is gold.

Oh wait! You are already there!

 

[davideduardo]

s.

Now go listen to your masters on the dial, sell your soul for whatever they say and pretend crap is gold.

The "masters" in broadcasting are the listeners. Stations without them sell no advertising or attract no donations.

If you are not satisfied with what is on your local stations, you are too young, too old or not part of a group large enough to constitute an audience large enough to sustain a station.

 

[davideduardo]

Sad. Radio has to appeal to people like you instead of something better explains why music stations pay listeners to be a caller and news stations have to cover the latest killer to get people interested. Life in the toilet.

I have no idea why you think music stations pay listeners to "be a caller". I've never heard of that being done. And I've been around a couple of music stations.

And if you expect a news station to cover the things that people don't care about, then you are mistaken. To understand radio news, it is helpful to also understand Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Give it a read.

No wonder the commercials are gross medical products that repel listeners, or sales gimmicks from retailers trying to sell crap only the young & dumb are stupid enough to buy. You deserve each other.

Radio... or TV... or the Internet... or even newspapers don't control commerce. As long as it is legal, they can advertise anything they want. You can't only take ads from the clients you personally like, as that is a form of restraint of trade.

It used to be tv and radio brought families together but now tears them apart. The devil is proud.

I'm sure you have facts and data to substantiate this.

The last time I recall "family radio listening" was gathering around the big Zenity in the living room to hear Edgar Bergan & Charlie McCarthy. But as soon as I got my little transistor radio, I never listened to the radio in a family setting again.

Oh, and I can point you to publications that reported how shows like The Green Hornet were destroying family values back in the 40's... every generation seems to think that the media is tearing society asunder. And they are always wrong.

 

[TheBigA]

Just saying the obvious.

Me too.