its simple.. or should be...

[kewlnet]

as i own both label and a number of online tv channels, and formerly owned a few radio stations online also.. heres my take..

artists/labels have to pay for things such as studio time, manufacturing,packaging and distribution, venue hire and promotion..

and unless they use the likes of myspace, they have to pay for web domain, hosting, site development etc..

why should they get paid for airplay?.. they are lucky to get it.. it costs station owners enough in hosting and bandwith.. let alone time.. labour etc..

..but artists are getting all these resources utilised for their benefit.. entirely free!?

artists/their labels should pay for the airplay.. payola was going in the right direction.

stations are already providing the promotion free of charge.. in a sense, already paying the artist/label in return for helping boost their viewer/listener figures.

the artist nor the label have to do anything else for this other than produce the track..

so they are already getting 'paid' repeatedly by lots of stations.. for work they have had to do only once.

the artists and their labels recognise the fact when it comes to making use of the likes of myspace or youtube for example..

but forget it when it comes to internet radio and tv stations..

they lose far more from waiving royalties and paying for advertising on the bigger sites than they do from radio and tv online.. i guess it pays off..

but by the same token, internet airplay pays off no matter whether its one or two big sites, or a hundred or so smaller sites..

why penalise a bunch of smaller guys who collectively are affording you with fantastic promotion? getting your name and your work out there.. on a global scale?

why penalise a bunch of smaller guys who are providing valuable store support to your digital and retail outlets?

..showcasing and encouraging their viewers/listeners to buy your records,dvds and other merchandise..?

encouraging their listeners to come to your gigs and personal appearances..?.. to visit your webpages etc..? to find out more!?

biting the hand that feeds you, i.e putting radio/tv stations who cannot afford to stay in the game out of business is not a good idea..

my gf works for HMV, and along with her colleagues, she has lost count how many cd's and dvd's they have sold as a direct result of radio/tv airplay..

and a growing number of those sales are down to hearing or seeing something on a small online radio or tv channel..

(now by that token, the stations should get commission..)

but why is it that radio and tv are the only people who have to pay an artist to promote the work of that artist?

(and considering the artists typically have to a) have a publisher, b) have minimum outstanding royalties of thousands of dollars and c) must wait sometimes well over 12-18 months or even longer to get their money even after it has been collected by the rights agencies -it makes even less sense..)

[Wavestreaming]

Some good points made, I do agree with some of them...

I think its unlikely that record labels will start paying us as small-time internet broadcasters. Issue with this, is anyone can buy or create a server with a few slots and call themselves a radio station (and there is absolutely nothing wrong with this) - but if they are getting commissions from the labels by doing this and word gets around; everyone would then start doing the same and 2 things would happen:

1. Record label has too much money going out and they cut the scheme as its not affordable to them.
2. Internet broadcasters would gain huge amounts of 'competition' from people just doing it for the money.

However, I do think that we should be entitled to free or heavily discounted royalties - which can at least fit our pockets.

[sputnik radio]

Because broadcasters are on the bottom of the food chain.

[MorningAtNight]

All good points from where I sit. I'm not sure if it's because the metal community is more friendly to each other than in some genres, but I've had really good luck dealing with individual artists.

As for payola...well, I used to track songs for various bands and labels (most probably know, but for those that don't tracking is the process of contacting PDs and getting them pick up a tune for rotation. In exchange, you provide payola in the form of tickets to shows, backstage passes etc. It's not necessarily pay-for-play, but pretty close ;)) and I can attest that it still exists despite lawsuits to the contrary.

I can't speak for what it's like outside of my chosen genre, but starting with locals is a good way to go. It's simple enough to tell a local band that you'll play their tunes on your show if they guest list you for a show or two. Even bigger well known bands I have contacted over MySpace have told me to play their music all I want. I've helped local bands sell CDs to people on the other side of the world that would never have heard of them any other way.

Of course...the fact that I don't make any money, don't play ads on my show, and generally keep everything completely free makes them see that I do it for the love of the genre, not to make money or get comp tickets and the like. I've yet to contact a band (of any fame level) that is against me playing their tunes without paying royalties because my listener base is small and no money is changeing hands or going into my pocket.

Obviously for bigger broadcasters that have a revenue stream this isn't as simple. At that point the label gets involved and wants to see that royalty money. It is after all their property. Every band I've talked to about playing their tunes on my show has asked about my listener base and whether I collect any revenue for the show before saying "yeah dude...play that shit out!"

[sputnik radio]

i don't see the problem with payola . I mean it's no different then lobbying congress and paying congressman to pass laws that favor you.

whats good for the goose.


I was hoping this "BRAVE NEW CONGRESS" would do something that serves the people but it seems they are no better than the ones they replaced.

God I hate politicians.