• 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

Radio Performance Tax To Kill Radio As We Know It?

Don't believe everything the NAB tells you. Radio "as we know it" right now isn't such a great industry. If a tax could lead to a dismantling of the conglomerates and bring back localism and the more freewheeling days of programming of 20-30 years ago, it would be a good thing.
 
daypart said:
Don't believe everything the NAB tells you. Radio "as we know it" right now isn't such a great industry. If a tax could lead to a dismantling of the conglomerates and bring back localism and the more freewheeling days of programming of 20-30 years ago, it would be a good thing.
Click to expand...

You think so?

I dunno.  I am reading and learning a little on this and one columnist said basically it forces stations to pay royalties to broadcast music.  Having the industry in such disarray financially speaking, I do not see how that could be a good thing.  You would think the stations in more financial trouble would shrink their playlist giving the listener less of a variety.  This could further throw the broadcasting industry into the toilet bowl. Hiring freezes and cutbacks would be way more common than they are now.

NOTE- I am still reading up and learning about this.
 
Just about every other country in the world requires radio to pay mechanical royalties.
The U-S stations only pay songwriter (publishing) royalties. There's got to be a fair medium between payments to the people creating the music and reimbursement for the promotional consideration received from airplay.
 
grantchester said:
Just about every other country in the world requires radio to pay mechanical royalties.
The U-S stations only pay songwriter (publishing) royalties. There's got to be a fair medium between payments to the people creating the music and reimbursement for the promotional consideration received from airplay.
Click to expand...

Sure this might be good from a musicians standpoint, but for the radio industry... can't be good.

Sure there are those out there who would be considered.... okay I will go ahead and flat out say it "CHEAP!" How will they be now that they have to pay additional monies just to broadcast music? To me it currently acts as a "I scratch your back if you scratch mine" kinda deal. Broadcasting recording artist helps promote the musicians album. Which brings the artist revenue. Revenue that would surely be different (most likely less) if the radio did not promote it at all.

My opinion....
 
The notion that the Performance Rights Act will force the big consolidators out of the business while enriching small broadcasters and increasing local content is misinformed and false. The mom and pop operator that runs a live/local operation 24/7 is a very extreme exception to the rule. Not only have most of them cut staff down to the level of the Clear Channels and Cumuluses, if not even leaner, but they started much sooner than the large corporations. The smaller operators will go down before the consolidators.

While it's true that most other countries have a "performance right," it's also true that most countries operate under the same concept we do. If you want to be heard on the radio in those countries, you have to open up your checkbook. We have a free airtime/free play system while most other countries have a pay for airtime/pay for play system. The idea was that, if it was wrong for labels and artists to pay radio, it was wrong for radio to pay labels and artists. In other words, if we must have a "performance right," we should reform the entire system rather than patching the existing system together.
 
DominiqueRadio said:
Sure this might be good from a musicians standpoint, but for the radio industry... can't be good.

Sure there are those out there who would be considered.... okay I will go ahead and flat out say it "CHEAP!" How will they be now that they have to pay additional monies just to broadcast music? To me it currently acts as a "I scratch your back if you scratch mine" kinda deal. Broadcasting recording artist helps promote the musicians album. Which brings the artist revenue. Revenue that would surely be different (most likely less) if the radio did not promote it at all.
Click to expand...
"You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" is not an appealing proposition when the skin on the music industry's back has grown thin from malnutrition. :eek:

Online piracy is pulling most of the revenue out of the music sales business. CD sales have tanked horribly over the past 10 years and there is far less revenue to be made in legal downloads. Artists and labels can no longer be assured of profits from the sale of minor hits to consumers. Consumers would rather download it for free than pay $15 at WalMart. Since lawmakers seem disinclined to slap technological curbs on music piracy, a new revenue source had to be found to keep the music industry viable. Who better to "tax" than radio, the largest industry that uses music as a programming linchpin to generate profits?
 
daypart said:
"You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" is not an appealing proposition when the skin on the music industry's back has grown thin from malnutrition.  :eek:

Online piracy is pulling most of the revenue out of the music sales business. CD sales have tanked horribly over the past 10 years and there is far less revenue to be made in legal downloads. Artists and labels can no longer be assured of profits from the sale of minor hits to consumers. Consumers would rather download it for free than pay $15 at WalMart. Since lawmakers seem disinclined to slap technological curbs on music piracy, a new revenue source had to be found to keep the music industry viable. Who better to "tax" than radio, the largest industry that uses music as a programming linchpin to generate profits?
Click to expand...

Know what this reminds me of?  Did you ever see the southpark episode about downloading music? 

"Brittney Spears is used to flying in a G4 private jet.  But because of pirates downloading her music... she can now only afford a G3."

lmao
 
I agree, Dominique. It's hard for me to buy the "we're starving" argument when Edgar Bronfman is one of the UK's richest men!
 
daypart said:
Online piracy is pulling most of the revenue out of the music sales business. CD sales have tanked horribly over the past 10 years and there is far less revenue to be made in legal downloads. Artists and labels can no longer be assured of profits from the sale of minor hits to consumers. Consumers would rather download it for free than pay $15 at WalMart. Since lawmakers seem disinclined to slap technological curbs on music piracy, a new revenue source had to be found to keep the music industry viable. Who better to "tax" than radio, the largest industry that uses music as a programming linchpin to generate profits?
Click to expand...

No question that piracy is a big problem but another cause of the music industry problems just might be the quality of their product. To be sure there are still many artists putting out remarkable music but it isn't in the "pop" category (the largest single market). What constitutes pop these days is some club/dance/techno music and the rest hip-hop and rap. Understandably those genre's don't draw a wide customer base.
 
I have no problem paying for my music.. I love giving credit where credit is due. However, I believe that the music industry dropped the ball when they felt compelled to shove CDs down our throat while ignoring technological advances. If they beat Napster in online music download, they would have been in a much different situation than they are today. Innovating thinking is key to survival. No industry can operate with the "business as usual" mindset and expect to be around forever.

I'm against the Radio Performance Tax, though, because I think its highly one-sided. I think it will hurt the smaller artists and record companies more than the larger ones.
 
landtuna said:
daypart said:
Online piracy is pulling most of the revenue out of the music sales business. CD sales have tanked horribly over the past 10 years and there is far less revenue to be made in legal downloads. Artists and labels can no longer be assured of profits from the sale of minor hits to consumers. Consumers would rather download it for free than pay $15 at WalMart. Since lawmakers seem disinclined to slap technological curbs on music piracy, a new revenue source had to be found to keep the music industry viable. Who better to "tax" than radio, the largest industry that uses music as a programming linchpin to generate profits?
Click to expand...

No question that piracy is a big problem but another cause of the music industry problems just might be the quality of their product. To be sure there are still many artists putting out remarkable music but it isn't in the "pop" category (the largest single market). What constitutes pop these days is some club/dance/techno music and the rest hip-hop and rap. Understandably those genre's don't draw a wide customer base.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The quality of their product is no better than its analog or digital predecessors in the 80s-90s. Music today is mastered loud and distorted. MP3s have also killed sound quality where producers feel the need to "turn it up" so you don't hear and digital harshness. Granted, pop music is getting a little better with more rock and dance, even country oriented music, but the quality is still sub par of what it was 20+ years ago.
 
If the quality of today's music is so terrible, then why are so many radio stations still programming music? IMO, your argument that today's music is far less appealing rings a bit hollow when it's still the focal point of programming on most FMs! Music can't be undesirable to consumers, yet desirable for programming.

The notion that music has declined in quality supports the tax. Programmers will eventually recognize the decline in the appeal of music and program more stations in non-music formats, since that's where the audience will be. Thus the "tax" won't affect them so much, since they'll have moved away from what's being taxed. Radio "as we know it" will be saved! But... um... it'll no longer be as we know it. ;)
 
The tax is purely an effort to create a new revenue stream for artists who got a bad record deal. I believe record companies will exampt their music for the first years out just to get airplay and we'll end up with stations that play nothing but currents. The older artists pushing for this will get no airplay anyway.
 
I can certainly see both sides of the argument. However, people tend to forget that what they see in music videos is all rented/fake. They buy into it as if it is all real. Just because you become a musician doesn't mean big bank account, big house, big car, poolside with 327293893248 models, etc.

Having said that it is almost as if having all that has become an unwritten prerequisite to all musicians. Thus setting ridiculously high standards. They assume "Oh hell yes I just signed a record deal, I will be swimming in the money any time now." Why should radio have to fit the bill to cut some of the slack? If anything, the record labels and artist should pay the radio stations for promotion. Any kind of promotion cost money when labels promote their artist. Yet one of their BIGGEST promotional tools (the radio) goes unpaid. Now why is that? And now the performance tax wants radio to pay them?

I don't think so... I stand on opposing this performance tax.
 
And having recently seen Ke$ha perform on Saturday Night Live, I have to say the composer not the artist deserve to get paid. All she has going for her is a great song.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom