Is Radio Bad For Music? Not Really, But The RIAA Will Say So
from the misunderstanding-markets dept
Remember a few months back when the RIAA started asking the government to get radio stations to pay up for promoting their music? This seemed pretty ludicrous (especially when you add in the fact that record labels for years have paid radio stations via payola to get them to play their music in the first place). Well, the group organized by the RIAA to push this plan has found a professor to publish a study saying that radio actually makes people buy less music. This way, they can claim that radio actually is not a promotional medium for music. Of course, there are a ton of questions about the methodology of this. First of all, if this were actually true, why has the entire history of music radio included the recording industry payola to get songs played? If radio really wasn't promoting sales of records, then why would they keep doing it, even after getting fined over and over and over again. Clearly, the record labels know that there's a benefit in being on the radio. However, even if it is true that radio decreases the demand for albums, nowhere is it explained why this is a problem that the government should solve. Whether or not radio promotes album sales, it clearly promotes music and that opens up all kinds of opportunities for the musicians to make money. The fact that the record labels are unable to capitalize on that is a marketing problem -- which doesn't need a government-backed tax on radio stations to fix. Update: And W. B. McNamara shows up with an excellent explanation that could explain the numbers in the report that suggest it's not "radio" that decreased buying interest -- it's crappy radio, driven by radio consolidation and homogenization.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The real clarification needed is to understand who gets that money from the stations. In this case, it is the writers / composers. This could in fact be the artists of a given song if they wrote it, so in those cases the artist is "getting paid". However in MANY cases, the artists did not write the music or lyrics, in these cases the artist would not receive part of the licensing money paid by the stations. This approach for paying the writers / composers worked very well back in the earliest days of radio when stations actually had staff musicians to play the music being aired. The tradition continues based on the concept that by playing recorded music on the air results in subsequent sales (records (CDs), concert tickets, other…). You can think of it as an advertising agreement between the labels / artists and the radio industry. Let the stations use the recording of a song for free and we (radio) will plug and promote it on air to listeners who make like the song enough to buy the recording. We (radio) still pay the licensing companies like BMI to make sure that they get something for their work since they may not have appeared on the recording in any fashion AND we may have used their song with our own musicians, although that is somewhat rare these days.
While I do not agree with the findings of the previously mentioned study, it is merely one researcher/s finding and views on those findings. He / they are absolutely entitled to their views on the relationship between airplay and sales, however that does not guarantee that they are correct or accurate. There was a time when people believed the world was flat because they could not perceive the curvature of the earth. To some degree I think this falls under the any press is good press marketing concept. Even bad press can make you famous. I can think of no logical reason that Paris Hilton should be famous, yet she is. Press, marketing and exposure are arguably powerful resources. If the RIAA truly buys into the concept that airplay is counterproductive to sales, then make the stations pay for the music, but I think you will then drive the stations to be much more picky and seek out real talent which in many cases does not fall within the RIAA stables.
That is just my opinion though
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is actually normal.
I don't like RIAA and their policies (even though artists are richer than ever nowadays), but this is normal practice all around the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is actually normal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But what are radio stations without the music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it me, or is this mental?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great! Then even more people will turn to the internet to find music -- they'll discover new bands and get music for free, whether it's given away by the artists (increasingly becoming the norm) or shared in violation of copyright. That's good for diversity and bad for the horrible pop the big boys of the recording industry promote anyway -- Britney, the latest boy band, and the new gangsta rapper of the week. Ugh!
The recording industry won't stop until they've gauranteed their own destruction by making themselves not the merely irrelevant middlemen that they are, but by actually being a negative force for music in general. I feel bad for the smaller labels that have been hit so hard by the internet, but not for the RIAA big boys. Not one bit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Get music for free" -- that'll result in even less music as there will be no incentive to make music...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
God, man, try to sound less like a RIAA shill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This is empirically, logically and historically false. Why? Simple, because even if there's no copyright on the music, the musician is still very much in demand and can make a lot of money if their music is popular.
Verdi wrote much MORE music before copyright was put in place. Why? Because he made more money each time he created something new. Once he had copyright he could rest of his laurels and slow down on creating new music.
In China, where copyright isn't nearly as well respected, there's a tremendous growth in the music industry. They may not be selling *records* any more, but the popularity driven by free online downloads has resulted in musicians being able to make more money than ever before thanks to things like sponsorships and concerts.
So, please, don't say that the incentive goes away. It doesn't. It just changes where the money is made, but actually increases the pie. This was true in the past and it's true now. There's plenty of research on this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They won't be satisfied till it is graveyard dead
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unbelievable
I haven't bought a CD since the whole Napster incident. I used to average about 10 CDs a week. I used to figure out which ones to buy by listening to the radio for the singles, and then downloading one or two of the ones that weren't played to see if they were good enough to buy the CD. Apparently listening to the radio and downloading are illegal now, so I buy only indy music. RIAA, you'll never see a dime of my money, you greedy losers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He just analyzed the data he collected and proposed a theory to explain the data. And, it makes sense. If there was no radio, people would certainly buy more music (or download, whatever). The point is that it does essentially offer free music to people that would be forced to get elsewhere. All radio does is promote very few popular albums and songs, which does not off-set the lost sales. Want to refute his study? Do your own (with real data) or go find someone who can.
Now, that said, radio station are currently exempt from paying anyone but the artists. The RIAA is trying to change this. While I am usually fed up with Techdirt's constant banter on how anything and everything the RIAA does is immoral and wrong, I do agree that they are directing attention to something that is probably insignificant compared to other issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Studies are bought and paid for every day. (think big tobacco)
"The point is that it does essentially offer free music to people that would be forced to get elsewhere."
Would they now? I often go months without music with no ill effects. Listening is a habit, just like smoking.
The longer I go without any the less I miss it. I have a stereo in my shop, it hasn't been on a long time, I find I think much better in silence. I have a car in which the radio hasn't worked since 2000, I have no plans to fix it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Take radio out of the equation and watch sale plummet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm wondering...
And frankly speaking without radio and tv stations how will people know about the music they are trying to get to sell?
So in review the RIAA thinks radio stations should pay them in order to play music. Funny how in all these talks about increased royalties not much has been said about giving more money to musicians. I think there is only one way to really hurt the RIAA, drain their money supply. Anytime anything that may threaten them comes along they just pay someone to get rid of it. Take away that bribe money and they'd be powerless. Of course that is easier said than done since they have ammassed so much money that they can pay almost any price for whatever laws, mandates, and judgements they need to keep their ragged business model alive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: #13 & #11
Show me some data instead of stuff like:
"I listen to radio to hear about bands and I bought a cd once because of that so this study is wrong!!"
"This study doesn't follow my or my friend's behavioral patterns, therefore radio does help the industry!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIAA hates everyone!!!
They even lie to sue people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Okay, fine
Dear RIAA: I'd ask you to commit honorable suicide, but you already seem bent on doing this, and so please hurry it up. Thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Okay, fine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Correlation and Causality
It's interesting that the study covers a five year period (1998-2003) following the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which eliminated the national cap on radio station ownership, and dramatically increased the number of radio stations that a single company could own in a single market.
The Future of Music Coalition has put out a number of papers that look at radio station ownership and programming trends during this same period, and (among other things) found that the consolidation of radio station ownership has led to increased homogenization in programming.
While increased radio listening may correlate to decreased album purchasing, causality seems like its an open question. Does this correlation hold true if you segment out local/freeform radio stations from Clear Channel and friends? After all, it seems like it's a little unreasonable to expect broadcast radio to increase sales of music that isn't broadcast on radio, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Correlation and Causality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Correlation and Causality
A Vincent Clement looked harder than I did and provided a link to the paper in the comments on my original post: http://som.utdallas.edu/capri/stan-radio.pdf.
I haven't yet taken a look, but very much appreciate the link and wanted to pass it along.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Somehow the RIAA forgot to mention that in their press release.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is America, Shohat
Well I've got news for you...there are a lot of lame things that happen in "most countries" but this is America.
We also don't have people driving around in vans with radio receivers trying to make sure we pay our television tax, do we?
Once again, the RIAA is proving that they are sorely out of touch with the state of music distribution and what is truly best for artists as well as fans of music.
Shohat, perhaps you can go to one of those other "normal" countries, if you're not already there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's the only logical thing to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
YES!!!!
kick back watch it crumble, see the drowning watch the fall
i feel just terrible about it, that s sarcasm, let it burn
i m gonna make at toast when it falls apart
i m gonna raise my glass abuv my heart
then someone shouts that s what they get!
for all the years of hit and run for all the piss broke bands on vh one
where did all their money go don t we all know
parasitic music industry as it destroys itself
we ll show them how it s supposed to be
music written from devotion not ambition, not for fame
zero people are exploited there are no tricks up or sleeve
were gonna fight against the mass appeal
were gonna kill the seven record deal
make records that have more then one good song
the dinosaurs will slowly die and i do believe no one will cry
i m just fucking glad i m gonna be there to watch the fall
prehistoric music industry three feet in la brea tar
extinction never felt so good
if you think anyone will feel badly you are sadly mistaken
the time has come for evolution fuck collusion kill the five
what ever happened to the handshake whatever happened to deals no one would break whatever happened to integrity
it s still there it always was for playing music just because
a million reasons why all dinosaurs must (will) die
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: YES!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Have you listened to the radio lately? Me neither.
I can see how listening to Clear Channel-owned stations (which is pretty much all of them now) would lead one to believe that all music SUCKS, and thus lead to decreased purchases. If you like music, and accidentally turn on the radio and hear what they are trying to force on you, YOU MAY NEVER BUY A CD AGAIN!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WTF?
"Mrs. Smith, do you remember that beautiful Friday night when you took a stroll through the park? Well, I am sorry to tell you this, but our cameras noticed that you started dancing just a bit as you overheard the concert in the neighboring stadium. You mean to tell us that you heard our music without authorization but failed to turn yourself in? That is piracy, Mrs. Smith. I am sorry, but nothing can be done for you." *places handcuffs on Mrs. Smith; takes her away*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Attacking IP again..
Mike, how about making money of the labor of producing good music? Why should the musicians have to pursue "other opportunities"? Is that your "scarce vs. non-scarce" B.S. argument again? That as soon as music is produced and can be copied digitally that it's worthless.
This site must be getting it's own payola from somewhere...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Attacking IP again..
Mike never suggested that musicians have to give up their dream of making music full-time. You ask, "Why should musicians have to pursue other opportunities?" Because life is not fair. That is like me asking, "Why can't I get paid to sit at home and play video games?" The market is changing whether musicians like it or not. The business model of selling music directly has its days numbered. If an artist wants to make money that way, he is perfectly free to, but he cannot complain once his sales have stopped due to everyone flocking to artists who give their music away for free. As Mike explained in his earlier articles, no one is "entitled" to make money. There is not a direct correlation between work and pay. I can go pull weeds for 12 hours out in the fields, but I will not receive a single penny because (A) no one asked to have those weeds pulled and (B) no one is willing to "thank" me by paying me.
Coming back to musicians producing good music, all they need to do is hire a PR team. The PR team builds a web site, spreads the band's name around, secures venue performances, sells band paraphernalia, etc. while the band focuses on making music. Even though the music is not being sold directly, it is most definitely their source of revenue. If they stopped making music, the PR team suddenly has nothing to work with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Attacking IP again..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Attacking IP again..
Now that's funny. An RIAA shill tossing out payola accusations! I've noticed in life that thieves, liars, scam artists, etc. usually think that everyone else is "doing it too".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Attacking IP again..
So many questions, Brad. First of all, why is the scarce/non-scarce argument BS. So far you've just said it's wrong, but I've backed it up for years with detailed explanations, data and examples. So I'm curious if you can explain why it's wrong.
Second, asking why should musicians have to pursue other opportunities is like asking why should buggy whip makers have to go out of business as automobiles became popular. It's because the market is changing.
And, seriously, would you rather be the most successful buggy whipper maker, or a decently successful auto maker. The new market was much bigger. Same with the new market for music.
This site must be getting it's own payola from somewhere...
Please. If you're going to make a lame accusation like that, at least have something to back it up. The most amusing thing is that everything we write here is trying to HELP the music industry make more money.
So, since you have no proof (because it's simply false), please retract your accusation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Answer
More people are downloading music an less people are buying it, the reasons may vary. Myself, I do not buy music anymore, and rarely stream anything from the internet, not because I don't enjoy music, but because the RIAA has pissed me off and there is very little music coming out today that I find of any quality to even bother with having.
Maybe if the Labels would put more focus into the "music" and less into creating a marketable product, things might shape up for everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, go ahead RIAA. Remove your "music" from the public airwaves, from Internet radio, get rid of any and all ways of promoting your crap... and then all the wannabe Britney Queers and N'SINK losers will fall apart and we'll actually have talented artists/bands (non RIAA) to listen to again. Sounds like a plan to me!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sex, Lies and Audio Tape.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Leibowitz article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
weak sauce
First, here's the whole study that you were referring to. It's pretty thin!!! So he changed it and re-released it about 6 months ago. I don't have that revision yet; but soon.
http://www.serci.org/docs/liebowitz.pdf
Second:
"It is clearly the number one way that we're getting our music exposed. Nothing else affects retail sales the way terrestrial radio does." - Tom Biery, Senior Vice President for Promotion, Warner Bros. Records, 2005.
******
"I have yet to see the big reaction you want to see to a hit until it goes on the radio. I'm a big, big fan of radio." - Richard Palmese, Executive Vice President of Promotion, RCA, 2007.
******
"Radio has proven itself time and time again to be the biggest vehicle to expose new music." - Ken Lane, Senior Vice President for Promotion, Island Def Jam Music Group, 2005.
That is all...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: weak sauce
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even doubledare you :)
Actually - the RIAA should be paying the radio stations to air their music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Would be awesome if the radio stations did stop
Why not? If even all of the Clear Channel stations decided to just play independent artists, that would cripple the RIAA. And the artists would promptly turn on the RIAA and force them to shut the F up.
As for the "quality" of music, would most people really notice a difference? It's not like most of what gets played on the radio is very good.
But hey, what do I know. I haven't consistently listened to the radio since I bought an MP3 player 5 years ago. And all the issues surrounding the purchasing of online music - legal options with DRM vs. illegal options that are easier to use - have slowly moved me to a point where I barely buy any new music at all. I listen almost exclusively to podcasts and old music that I've purchased years ago. I didn't plan for that to happen, but I've found that I don't miss "new music" at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1 giant radio station
This is going to cause all the smaller stations to sell out to clear (hurl chunks) channel. That is the plan really. Consolidate to one monopoly terrestrial broadcaster and then the play list for the whole country is done from one location in LA. Combine that with only one satellite radio also controlled from one place and you have complete control on what the citizens hear. Much easier to keep the sheep in line when they are brain washed with the junk pumped out from such a boring play list.
Eat your soylent green and do not ask questions. Do as you are told...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The sky is falling
Further, I agree that we SHOULD pull all the RIAA backed musicians from all radio stations. Why should we reward mediocrity? Replace them with all indie music; quite a lot of which represents real talent. Those musicians would reap the benefits of airplay and moreover, society would benefit by being exposed to quality music instead of a bunch of Britney Spears clones. It's quite a nice scenario really. All the RIAA fat cats die off and radio is free of the mindless tripe pushed on us today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hope they win
Personally, I stopped listening to music radio years ago when it seemed like every "Mix" station played the exact same songs.
I've often wondered about radio stations that promoted a "no repeat workday". Are they really, seriously, telling us that they can't find enough unique songs to fill one day? I can believe it if they only used songs that were released this year, but some of these radio stations bill themselves as "soft rock" and should have an entire *genre* worth of music to play.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but this would show that radio stations really are forced to play the same limited set of songs... probably only by artists or labels that are on the "approved list" (meaning: these people have paid the radio station's parent corporation to get the songs played over and over).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I hope they win
As to the concept of artists paying to be on your playlist, that doesn't happen in the direct sense much anymore. The payola regs. and fines are quite stiff. I am not saying it doesn't ever happen, I am saying it isn't at all like it was back in the 50s. Then it was a common way of getting added to the station playlist. Now artists and labels buy their way onto a play list with promotion and demand. If enough people want to hear it and it is within the general formatic guidelines (a rock station isn't likely to play a country hit…) of a given station, they are gonna play it. They would be foolish not to. Again though you can see the problem with this model, the popular or in demand stuff will be played and the lesser known stuff (all be it equal if not better material) may or may not get played. There are only so many broadcast hours in a day, week or year so eventually you hit the practical wall of how large you playlist / library needs to be. This is not to say that the playlists or libraries are stagnant, because they are not. Things change so the library (with the possible exception of oldies formats) must change too, but it will tend to have a clump of songs that are "core" to the format and will be played more than others because that is what the clump of listeners want to hear most often. The radio stations ultimately do control what they play, not the labels, but it is demand that controls the radio stations and the labels can create that, so they do have some indirect influence on the playlists.
I hope that clears things up a bit for you on those two very good observations on radio that you pointed out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Playing Music on the Radio...
Sincerely, Jerry Chiappetta, Jr., Performing Artist / Songwriter/Composer. PS: I accept Visa, MasterCard, American Express, Discover, Diners Club, Pay Pal....everything but your Exxon card.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]