• 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 & Sony/BMG Caught for Payola Scams

N

Nate Wesley

I'm surprised there hasn't been any discussion of the findings of the New York Attorney General towards the radio payola scams involving Sony BMG and radio stations/personnel all over the country. Here's a link to two stories from Radio & Records:

http://www.radioandrecords.com/Newsroom/2005_07_25/sonybmgpayola.asp

The follow up article names names of personnel at some pretty well known stations:

http://www.radioandrecords.com/Newsroom/2005_07_25/topstory.asp


The average listener probably might care about this (albeit marginally) had any of this made the mainstream news instead of business & trade outlets. Does anyone think either radio or the recording industry could take a credibility hit from any of this?<P ID="signature">______________
There's nothing to see here.</P>
 
> I'm surprised there hasn't been any discussion of the
> findings of the New York Attorney General towards the radio
> payola scams involving Sony BMG and radio stations/personnel
> all over the country. Here's a link to two stories from
> Radio & Records:
>
http://w> ww.radioandrecords.com/Newsroom/2005_07_25/sonybmgpayola.asp
>
>
> The follow up article names names of personnel at some
> pretty well known stations:
>
htt> p://www.radioandrecords.com/Newsroom/2005_07_25/topstory.asp
>
>
>
> The average listener probably might care about this (albeit
> marginally) had any of this made the mainstream news instead
> of business & trade outlets. Does anyone think either radio
> or the recording industry could take a credibility hit from
> any of this?
>
From the top ten market to the mid-50's market, I've seen the gifts, the money paperclipped to the record sleeve, the hookers, you name it. (Not me, believe it or not, but people I worked with.) Record promoters are very good at fishing out what a particular individual really wants and supplying it. The biggest danger is thinking you won't get caught. Modern technology can catch up with you much quicker than "back in the day". You're going to see some well known names go down in this one. And just when you think spin counts are a better way to really see how things are going with a particular song or group, here comes Deputy Dog to break up the party!
 
No. Payola will exist because it was not squashed the first time. When Payola was a big scandal back in the late 50's the people that brought up the stink were not working to abolish the practice. ASCAP, once the dominent music publishing company, was taking a back seat to BMI because most Rock N' Roll (as well as R&B) hits of the day were published by BMI. Thus ASCAP used their lobbying dollars to make a big deal out of payola to try and kill Rock N' Roll, not the practice of Payola (which they were probably kicking themselves for not doing as well). And their friends in Washington who had their panties in a wad over what they thought was "Obscene devil music" Payola was the scapegoat to try and bring Rock N' Roll to a crashing halt.

ASCAP was quite successful for awhile but they did not anticipate foreigners being influenced by what they just tried so hard to get off of the radio (ie the British Invasion). Thus because Payola was not abolished entirely the first time, the practice survives. It's way too late to do anything about it now. So why bother making a big deal about it? <P ID="signature">______________
In Harmony
From the Bop Shop,
Brian "BD Bopper"</P>
 
>So why bother making a big deal about it?

Because other people in the communities which are served by these publicly licensed stations aren't given the opportunities to milk record companies for big-ticket items that these PD's are getting.<P ID="signature">______________
"Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?"</P>
 
And what is the matter with that? Do not radio stations "milk" advertisers all day long for ad revenue? Did they not pay big bucks for the right to be on the government (socialist) airwaves and then build a station and fill it full of expensive equipment? Then pay salaries to a staff? And if they make money, pay taxes right back to the government that gave them permission to use the government's air?

And why is it so great that these stations are "publicly licensed?" In other words, they are franchises in a Socialist system and are beholden to a government aka Socialist owner of the airwaves. Communism has failed everywhere except where it is still failing. Public licensing of the airwaves is not something to boast about. It is something to be ashamed of and apologize for.

I wish you guys who wave your "public licensed" around like it is a red flag take it somewhere else, such as a socialist party convention, but leave your glorification of Socialism away from free, independent minded people who would like to see less government in their lives for a change.

I am being sharp here but this makes me angry and it strikes a nerve in me.


>
> Because other people in the communities which are served by
> these publicly licensed stations aren't given the
> opportunities to milk record companies for big-ticket items
> that these PD's are getting.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>
 
Damn Commies!

> And why is it so great that these stations are "publicly
> licensed?" In other words, they are franchises in a
> Socialist system and are beholden to a government aka
> Socialist owner of the airwaves.

Damn the system! Open up the market! Broadcast whatever you want, on whatever frequency you want, and the guy with the biggest transmitter and best tower location wins! Heck, compared to the cost of buying a regulated frequency, the cost of a big transmitter & tower is peanuts. We'll be rollin' in the dough - unless some SOB jams us... Well, then we'll call Tim Taylor, and get MORE POWER!

And screw the Canadians, Mexicans, and the rest of the world. They should be THRILLED to have American broadcasters blasting away on their airwaves!
 
> And what is the matter with that? Do not radio stations
> "milk" advertisers all day long for ad revenue? Did they
> not pay big bucks for the right to be on the government
> (socialist) airwaves and then build a station and fill it
> full of expensive equipment? Then pay salaries to a staff?
> And if they make money, pay taxes right back to the
> government that gave them permission to use the government's
> air?

Yes, but the money from advertisers is used to pay salaries and to perpetuate jobs in the community. That's the idea behind the public license.

But when a PD flat out says he'd like a laptop computer in exchange for adding a record, that's of no benefit to the community. That's where I draw the line.<P ID="signature">______________
"Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?"</P>
 
In response to your first paragraph:

Words can not describe the amount of contempt I have for the man whose head is on our dimes. This man is responsible for the US Government adopting every major platform of the 1928 Socialist Party Convention. That is documented in the appendix of Free To Choose by Milton Friedman.

The idea behind licenses and government ownership of the airwaves was to bring The USA closer to the Socialist ideals of this man. Nothing more, nothing less. Whatever other reasons are given are fluff.

We had anarchy on the airwaves and that is not good. But the solution that was given to us was not good either.


>
> Yes, but the money from advertisers is used to pay salaries
> and to perpetuate jobs in the community. That's the idea
> behind the public license.
>
> But when a PD flat out says he'd like a laptop computer in
> exchange for adding a record, that's of no benefit to the
> community. That's where I draw the line.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>
 
Re: Not Anarchy

The solution to Socialism is not anarchy. You are having an over-reaction.

The solution to Socialism is Capitalism. That includes private property and protection of that property against trespassers. Owners of radio frequencies will protect their property if there is a system for them to. We have a system for protection of real estate ownership. We can for radio frequencies too.

I think stations should broadcast whatever they want and suffer the consequences if they are wrong in their judgement.

I also think that treaties can be upheld with a capitalist system in place. Canadians, Mexicans, Cubans and Bahamians also have rights and can use the system to protect their rights.

Capitalism works!

> > And why is it so great that these stations are "publicly
> > licensed?" In other words, they are franchises in a
> > Socialist system and are beholden to a government aka
> > Socialist owner of the airwaves.
>
> Damn the system! Open up the market! Broadcast whatever you
> want, on whatever frequency you want, and the guy with the
> biggest transmitter and best tower location wins! Heck,
> compared to the cost of buying a regulated frequency, the
> cost of a big transmitter & tower is peanuts. We'll be
> rollin' in the dough - unless some SOB jams us... Well, then
> we'll call Tim Taylor, and get MORE POWER!
>
> And screw the Canadians, Mexicans, and the rest of the
> world. They should be THRILLED to have American broadcasters
> blasting away on their airwaves!
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>
 
Wave Barons

> The solution to Socialism is not anarchy. You are having an
> over-reaction.
>
> The solution to Socialism is Capitalism. That includes
> private property and protection of that property against
> trespassers. Owners of radio frequencies will protect their
> property if there is a system for them to. We have a system
> for protection of real estate ownership. We can for radio
> frequencies too.

So, there IS a limit to the number of channels available. And, we DO need to have a system to protect the rights of broadcasters. Otherwise, it would be like the CB days - the guy with the most power wins.

In real estate, we "acquired" the land from the indiginous people, then the government awarded rights to the land to political favorites and those with $$$ in large tracts. Those tracts were broken down into smaller sections, and sold by the land barons to developers, who broke the land down further and sold it to you and me.

Now, if you buy a piece of land, you can pretty much put what you want on it, as long as it doesn't run afoul of zoning laws, deed restrictions, or several hundred other regulations. If you want to open a porn shop, you're going to find a LOT of red tape between you and the day "Dave Universal Does SONY" flies off the shelf. And, you'd better make sure that you don't allow people under 21 to see smut, or you might star in "Bubba Gets a Little Pepper".

Some of the land has been reserved for all of us to use - National Forests, National Parks, etc. The land that is not privately owned has significant restrictions on use (ex: you can't take your SUV 4-wheeling through a meadow). You can't open your porn shop in a National Park, either.

So, I guess what I'm getting around to is that land allocation ain't so different from the allocation of the broadcast airwaves. Some of the airwaves have been allocated for personal use. Some have been allocated for government use. Some bandwidth has been licensed to broadcasters to who are allowed to run commercials with the stipulation that they serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity.

Come to think of it, I guess we don't have true capitalism in land allocation, either. The fact that we don't stems from the history of land allocation. Look at the history of Niagara Falls, NY, and you may understand why pure capitalism didn't work out so well there, and why the idea of land owned and controlled by the public came into being.
 
> Words can not describe the amount of contempt I have for the
> man whose head is on our dimes. This man is responsible for
> the US Government adopting every major platform of the 1928
> Socialist Party Convention. That is documented in the
> appendix of Free To Choose by Milton Friedman.
>
> The idea behind licenses and government ownership of the
> airwaves was to bring The USA closer to the Socialist ideals
> of this man. Nothing more, nothing less. Whatever other
> reasons are given are fluff.

Oh brother... I hear The John Birch Society a-callin'.
 
This is getting off topic and I am sorry. I am not calling FDR a Communist. He had beliefs that were Socialist and he put many of them into law. If Social Security is not a Socialist instituition, then I don't know what is. Or what is a better example of one?

He did that to radio too, by socializing (government takeover) of the airwaves. The airwaves should rightfully belong to private owners in a non-Socialist country. I don't trust the government with any natural resource. It is misused and wasted when it is under government control. Politics develops a heavy emphasis on where "public owned" resources go. The system breaks down with inefficiency. Government ownership of resources is proven over and over again to be a failure all over the world.

The John Birch Society was concerned with a Communist Conspiracy to take over the government and eventually to turn this country into a Soviet style country through conspiracy without firing a shot. I do not place FDR in that conspiracy.

>
> Oh brother... I hear The John Birch Society a-callin'.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>
 
> He did that to radio too, by socializing (government
> takeover) of the airwaves. The airwaves should rightfully
> belong to private owners in a non-Socialist country.

Limited resources like the airwaves in a democracy mandates that they are licensed to private companies to serve the public interest. An informed electorate is essential for a democracy to work.

I think this is a problem that will be solved by technology. With digital compression and other forms of transmission, there may soon be enough space for anyone and everyone to have a place on the air. I'm a big fan of community low power radio, and even unlicensed broadcasting when spectrum permits. Big corporate radio is the major entity standing in the way from this happening. You are directing your blame at the government. I think it far more rightly belongs in the hands of those who are trying to stop additional players from coming into the marketplace, and that is the Clear Channels of this world.






I don't
> trust the government with any natural resource. It is
> misused and wasted when it is under government control.
> Politics develops a heavy emphasis on where "public owned"
> resources go. The system breaks down with inefficiency.
> Government ownership of resources is proven over and over
> again to be a failure all over the world.
>
> The John Birch Society was concerned with a Communist
> Conspiracy to take over the government and eventually to
> turn this country into a Soviet style country through
> conspiracy without firing a shot. I do not place FDR in
> that conspiracy.
>
> >
> > Oh brother... I hear The John Birch Society a-callin'.
> >
>
 
I challenge you to tell what is NOT a limited resource. I can name some. Air, sand, saltwater. There are other things that are limitless such as human and industrial waste but they are not resources. Some systems have the philosophy that most resources should be owned by the government. Others believe in somthing like universal licensing. I have seen what works.

The airwaves are no different than any other resource. They are limited and government is the most irresponsible entity to dole out the resource. No system is perfect this side of Heaven. Man has devised a Capitalistic system over the last three hundred fifty years which is the best system to ration limited resources and almost everything of value is a limited resource. Government's role in the Capitalistic system is to protect the owners of assets from theft and to settle disputes and uphold contracts through an impartial court system.

The problem with you guys is that you think the airwave spectrum is special. It is not. It is under the same economic laws as gold, land and oil. I think gold, land and oil are more important than the airwaves and they are not owned by the government and licensed for use.

At this point I have said all I can. If you still think that radio frequencies are special, then eventually radio stations will suffer from the effects of over regulation as all similar industries eventually have.





> > He did that to radio too, by socializing (government
> > takeover) of the airwaves. The airwaves should rightfully
>
> > belong to private owners in a non-Socialist country.
>
> Limited resources like the airwaves in a democracy mandates
> that they are licensed to private companies to serve the
> public interest. An informed electorate is essential for a
> democracy to work.
> <P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom