Think Payola is a thing of the past? "Not so!" says Rolling Stone

[davideduardo]

Rolling Stone Magazine has done an investigative story with a surprising lack of actual details about alleged payola in radio.

Interesting, just last month they announced that the magazine would do its own music charts.

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/radio-stations-hit-pay-for-play-867825/

Of course, the magazine gets many things wrong about the industry and the law. The most obvious is in accusing radio stations of taking payola. By definition, payola exists when a staff member of a station takes money or consideration for airplay without the knowledge or consent of management and ownership.

If a station takes money for airplay, they must announce those spins as sponsored within the sponsor identification rules and they must enter the money as income for tax purposes. If those requirements are met, pay for play is totally legal.

Obviously, Rolling Stone has an agenda, and they are looking for an ox to gore.

 

[umfan]

There will be more sponsorship packages and sponsored spins going forward simply because radio companies need the revenue. As many of the distribution channels for new music aren't subject to FCC regulation, it's hard to discern what evil Rolling Stone is trying expose here. Radio's influence in crowning hit makers is greatly diminished from a generation ago and, with that, the impact of alleged payola is similarly diminished.

I guess there wasn't a rape story to fabricate this month.