IS THERE PAYOLA IN THE RADIO BUSINESS?

[breezy]

A federal judge in Denver has ruled there is evidence that the nation's biggest radio broadcaster and concert promoter CLEAR CHANNEL (owns 1200 radio stations) "abused its clout by threatening to keep artists off the air unless they performed at its shows."  He has ordered CLEAR CHANNEL to stand trial on August 2 and defend its business practices  after finding reason to believe "Clear Channel intends to manipulate artists' promotion decisions and interfere with competitors by WITHHOLDING AIRPLAY."

Stay tuned for updates.

[ACcountryFan]

the only downside is that this is 3 years in the making, giving Clear Channel plenty of time to cover up anything that might make them look guilty. if a lot of radio people will come forward and expose Clear Channel's practice of corporate tour sponsorship translating into airplay and promotion and therefore making it harder for other popular acts to get airplay, Clear Channel just might lose. however, i do think that Clear Channel is going to bully the people who work for them and intimidate them from telling the truth.

...i just wish the trial was sooner...Clear Channel has had 3 years to plot.

[Pamela]

And the beat goes on.....

L.A. Times: Cali State Senator Says Claim Against EMI "Raises Interesting Questions"

April 8, 2004

California State Senator Kevin Murray is looking into claims that EMI authorized the manipulation of SoundScan numbers, according to a story in the L.A. Times.
The charge reportedly stems from a legal tussle between the U.K.-based label group and L.A.-headquartered hip-hop label Avatar, with which EMI had previously been in a distribution deal. The indie rap outfit claims EMI coerced it to hire a “consultant” to artificially boost sales numbers by working a scan scam, the story says.

“EMI does not engage in any of these alleged practices,” goes a quote from an unidentified spokeswoman in reporter Jeff Leeds’ Times piece; the label rep went on to call the accusation “a red herring attempt by Avatar” to divert attention from its outstanding debt to its erstwhile distributor.

Murray, Leeds reports, is looking over statements from EMI and has not decided on a course of action.

Still, reads a quote from Murray in the story, the whole issue “raises some interesting questions about record company accounting practices.”

HITS DAILY DOUBLE

[ACcountryFan]

:?: how can a person manipulate Soundscan numbers? they're collected from bar-code scans from stores across America...let's hope that RCA doesn't choose to affiliate itself with EMI anytime soon!

[Glory]

many years ago there was a scandal about payolla in the business I cannot remember exactly the details anybody remember it,        Glory

[GWENN]

I HAVE BEEN CONVINCED FOR A WHILE THAT CC HAS BEEN PREVENTING CLAY FROM BEING PLAYED.  NOTHING ELSE MAKES SENSE.  I HOPE ALL OF THE DIRTY DEALS COME OUT, BUT I SUSPECT THEY WON'T.  CC HAS  LOT OF CLOUT.  OBVIOUSLY.

HGWENN

[clay_fan_20]

hehe we can always help to comes out, we can send emails to the celebrity shows like extra, access hollywood,celebrity justice, e news live etc, about this info and they can do de research, i mean we give them the scoop but they do the rest, i don't know, it's a thought, maybe it's not a good idea, but there are my two cents :P

[breezy]

I don't think it is or ever has been a 'secret' to anyone in the entertainment business. Payola has been a part of the music business since the beginning.  In l959 the original Payola congressional hearings were held, resulting in a l960 law passing that prohibited the practice.  But Payola continued to flourish.  In the 70's another Payola scandal erupted involving CLIVE DAVIS, then head of Columbia records, citing abuses of money, sex and drugs!

Which brings us to the present time...and the Federal probe of Clear Channel's payola practices scheduled to go to trial August 2.

And exactly what is payola?  Independent Promoters are paid by the record labels to influence airplay for their new releases.  In turn, these 'indies' pay the broadcasters large annual fees (which of course, they deny are tied to airplay of specific songs.)  It is a $100-million-a-year trade that operates solely for the purpose of determining which songs make it  to the station's playlist.

And who do these independent promoters pitch to?  The radio station's programmer!  So when you call up a DJ and ask him to play one of Clay's songs and you're told that it's out of his hands and that only the station's programmer can add it to the list, you'll understand he speaks the truth.

So, let's see where this takes us.  If payola is used to get airplay...and airplay is used to sell records...then what about Clay?  Yes, more airplay would obviously add to his sales and get him to the top of the charts, but in essence he has become a multi-platinum artist without much help, even from his own label, RCA.  Perhaps you noticed the lack of advertising and hype preceding his concert tour.  No full pages in the leading newspapers around the country...just small 3x4's tucked away on a back page somewhere.  Maybe RCA didn't feel they had to spend much figuring Clay's fan base would carry him and his music along and it is obvious they didn't put out any cash for an 'indie' to get him airplay. Can the reverse be said of Studdard and Locke's record label decisions? Just wondering.

Where do we go from here?  We all need to understand the way the music industry works and to keep requesting Clay's music...but without alienating.  To hope that these bribe tactics will someday stop...but realistically to accept that they probably won't.  To just keep doing what we've been doing:
buy his music,  attend his concerts,  support the Bubel/Aiken foundation,
appreciate all that he is and what he has given to us by allowing him to also have a private life.  It is the least we can do.

[Pamela]

This article was published three years ago, but may still be timely.  I'll just post the intro and link the rest if you want to read it.  Very interesting.

Pay for play

Why does radio suck? Because most stations play only the songs the record companies pay them to. And things are going to get worse.

By Eric Boehlert
March 14, 2001

Does radio seem bad these days? Do all the hits sound the same, all the stars seem like cookie cutouts of one another?

It's because they do, and they are.

 
Why? Listeners may not realize it, but radio today is largely bought by the record companies. Most rock and Top 40 stations get paid to play the songs they spin by the companies that manufacture the records.

But it's not payola -- -- exactly. Here's how it works.

SALON.COM

[ACcountryFan]

:roll: i just read that article from the link provided. it's payola, no matter how much the writer says it isn't. simply because it's disguised as a "business" doesn't make it anymore legitimate or acceptable.

[Pamela]

If this is a subject you are interested in, this website provides some excellent information.

RECORDING ARTISTS COALITION

[Pamela]

Here is another interesting article about radio play.

SALON.COM

ETA:  That last article was also from Salon.com. They must really have 'issues' with this subject!

[Pamela]

Clear Channel Goes to Trial

Concert and radio giant charged with crushing competition

In a legal setback for the world's largest concert promoter, Clear Channel Communications, a U.S. District Court judge granted a jury trial to a Denver competitor that accuses the company of "monopolistic and predatory practices."
Judge Edward W. Nottingham's 125-page ruling, which mentions Puddle of Mudd, Orgy and the Tattoo the Earth Tour (headlined by Slipknot), says the evidence suggests Clear Channel illegally reduced radio airplay for artists who booked concert tours with competing promoters.

"We feel pretty vindicated," says Jesse Morreale, co-owner of Nobody in Particular Presents, which filed the lawsuit against the San Antonio, Texas, radio-and-concert conglomerate in August 2001.

Clear Channel's chief legal officer, Andrew Levin, also responded positively to the ruling, noting that Nottingham threw out some of the most serious charges. He decided, for example, that Clear Channel did not have a monopoly on Denver's rock-concert market, because it controlled less than seventy percent of the business. "A few remaining parts of the case will proceed to trial," Levin says. "And we're confident these allegations ultimately will be dismissed, as well."

But evidence in court documents suggests that Clear Channel -- which owns more than 1,200 radio stations -- aimed to severely damage its Denver competitors and the artists who worked with them. The most dramatic details are found in e-mails from Michael O'Connor, director of programming for Clear Channel's five FM stations in Denver. When the 2001 Styx/Bad Company tour selected House of Blues as its promoter, O'Connor instructed his radio underlings to "crush" HOB and avoid mentioning the concert on its classic-rock stations. O'Connor added, "Let's get our frell out."

Testimony from managers at Roadrunner Records and Reprise also indicates that bands agreed to play Clear Channel venues because they feared losing airplay on Clear Channel stations if they signed with a competitor. Nobody in Particular, the Denver promoter, also accuses the company of paying artists sky-high tour salaries to kill competition.

If these claims are upheld -- the trial starts August 2nd -- other cases would likely follow, says John Solow, an antitrust expert and professor at the University of Iowa: "It would open the door to lots of people saying, 'You did it to us, too!'"

Doug Kauffman, Nobody in Particular's president and founder, says he just wants to do business as he did before Clear Channel had so much power. "We hope [the case] sets some precedent that would stop this kind of heavy-handed behavior and give us independent companies some relief," he says. "So we can operate like we always have."

STEVE KNOPPER
(April 20, 2004)

ROLLING STONE

[ACcountryFan]

it's a shame people have to go to court to get things done right! Clear Channel Communications being the owner of 1200 radio stations plus being in the concert promotion business...it's simply unfair to other promoters out there as the article said. also, with Clear Channel having control over radio, they play acts that help them make money...this stuff needs out of the music industry!

[Pamela]

I found this very interesting article at the Clackhouse.

Two years ago Bill Moyers did a show...(on PBS).
Here is a quote from this.

Now, radio is only one part of the Clear Channel conglomerate. While you may not have noticed the name, it's all over the place: The company owns billboards and other outdoor advertising ... television stations ... a concert promotion firm — it's even into Broadway shows: It's co-producer of the hit musical THE PRODUCERS.

This is what a business school prof might call "synergy": Clear Channel can use its taxi-top ads to promote its Broadway shows ... and its billboards to promote its radio stations.

Just how big is Clear Channel? Well here in Denver, if you want to listen to pop and rock, there's 93.3—Clear Channel; 95.7 KISS FM—Clear Channel, too; 97.3—Clear Channel; classic rock from the Fox, another Clear Channel station; and 106.7—Clear Channel.

Five stations — that's most of the pop and rock on the air. And that ... is a problem, according to Jesse Morreale: He's a concert promoter in Denver. So is Clear Channel.

JESSE MORREALE, CONCERT PROMOTER:They own the most radio stations ... They're the biggest concert promoter in the country by far. They did 70 percent of ticket sales last year.

Two years ago, Clear Channel bought the nation's largest concert and event promoter. Since then, Morreale alleges, Clear Channel's been trying to put him out of business.

MORREALE: This is a microcosm of what's happening around the country.

They control the programming for uh, all the radio stations that any of the people in this demographic might listen to.

And it's not unbiased information that is being given out – the songs aren't being played because they're the best songs. The concerts aren't being talked about because they're the best , most important concerts.

It's all based on this financial interest this company has in the concerts that they are promoting.

KARR: Morreale's firm — Nobody In Particular Presents — sued Clear Channel last year. The suit alleges that in Denver, "synergy" ... really means monopoly; it charges Clear Channel with "unlawful, anticompetitive and predatory" practices.

According to the suit, Clear Channel refuses to play certain acts' music on its radio stations ... unless those musicians book concerts with Clear Channel.

Morreale says he's stuck: Clear Channel won't promote his shows ... and he can't afford to buy a radio station on his own.

MORREALE: Play for our promoter or you won't get airplay ... Anticompetitive.

KARR: Clear Channel officials deny the charges in Morreale's suit ... but they declined our interview requests. Instead, they sent us this statement: — "Clear Channel's sheer size isn't what makes us a formidable competitor. It's our excellence in understanding the needs and wants of consumers .... In order to do so, we compete hard but fairly and within the rules." <snip>
KARR: Barry Fey helped create the rock touring business; he's been promoting shows in Denver since the mid sixties. Fey says Clear Channel has actually increased prices for consumers. He believes the company is using its deep pockets to outbid competitors — like him and Jesse Morreale — and try to price them out of the concert business.

FEY: You're the little guy in the poker game. You got a limit. Some guy keeps on raising. And he has no hand. Pretty soon, you got to drop out, because you don't have any money left.

KARR: Fey says that means consumers pay more for tickets. For instance, he says he bid against Clear Channel for an upcoming Denver concert.

FEY: We sent in our offer, for Bonnie Raitt ... $100,000. That's what the agent asked for. Our ticket price was $30.

KARR: According to Fey, Clear Channel countered with an offer of a quarter million dollars.

FEY: Now here that extra $150,000 is gonna be borne by 9000 people paying $15 extra.

KARR: Bottom line here is Clear Channel came in, outbid you, and consumers pay 50% more for the tickets?

FEY: That's correct. Correct.

KARR: Were consumers willing to pay that much?

FEY: Well they don't know they're paying 50% more, they don't know I was going to charge them thirty and they're going to have to pay forty-five.

KARR: Barry Fey says of course Clear Channel has the right to outbid him. And of course Bonnie Raitt was right to take the higher offer. But a windfall for the artist, he says, is bad for consumers: Tickets went on sale two weeks ago ... and Barry Fey's prediction was right on the money.

KARR: If consumers are willing to pay that much, who's hurt?

FEY: The consumer. There's not an infinite amount of money. Clear Channel makes you believe there is, but there's not ... people budget, and perhaps they would have bought two shows at thirty each, but now they're only gonna buy one at forty-five.

PBS.ORG

[cai]

Thanks for the post pamela.  Love keeping up on this stuff.

[ACcountryFan]

"Clear Channel's sheer size isn't what makes us a formidable competitor. It's our excellence in understanding the needs and wants of consumers....

i hope you all don't still think like this? open your eyes and you'll see a segment of the pop audience that wants Clay Aiken!

...In order to to understand our consumers, we compete hard but fairly and within the rules

you call banning acts who don't use your company as a concert sponsor, fair?

[Pamela]

Thanks to gramma for bringing these older articles over from the Clackhouse.

Brought over from the Clack House:  This is an old article, but a good reminder to us what we're fighting. If anyone has an update, please post it.
**********************************************************

Billboard
August 09, 2003
RAC Tapped To Talk To DOJ
BY BILL HOLLAND
WASHINGTON, D.C. -

The Department of Justice investigation into Clear Channel is moving forward.

Billboard has learned that the DOJ has requested an interview with an official from the Recording Artists' Coalition. The DOJ wants to discuss allegations of artist intimidation on the part of Clear Channel Communications, the giant radio and venue owner under fire for its business practices.

DOJ does not comment to the press regarding ongoing investigations, but R. Hewitt Pate, the DOJ's assistant attorney general for antitrust, revealed July 24 to the House Judiciary Committee's antitrust task force that DOJ attorneys have conducted "a number of interviews" as part of the probe into Clear Channel and have "undertaken significant efforts to find additional evidence."

Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., ranking member of the House Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property, has been frustrated by the DOJ's lack of follow-up on complaints about CCC. He pressed Pate on the issue at the antitrust task force hearing.

Berman sent a letter to the DOJ in January 2002 detailing the allegations against CCC. He tells Billboard, "DOJ has not adequately kept me in the loop on this issue.

" Since my letter, many have postulated that the Bush administration would not allow the DOJ to actively pursue antitrust investigations."

Clear Channel, which is headquartered in President George W. Bush's home state of Texas, is a major Republican campaign contributor.

Citing the DOJ's decision last year to go after Pressplay and MusicNet "in the as-yet infinitesimally small market for legal online music," Berman said, "The Bush DOJ is interested in publicly pursuing a lengthy investigation of rather speculative antitrust concerns. If it has such grave antitrust concerns, why isn't it willing to pursue allegations of actual anticompetitive behavior in the radio and concert industries?"

Clear Channel has been under scrutiny by federal lawmakers since 2002. Recording artists, rival radio stations and venue owners complain of alleged bullying tactics in which Clear Channel forces artists to do interviews and promotions on its radio stations or play its concert venues.

Berman says Clear Channel representatives have "assured me that Clear Channel does not engage in illegal activity and is simply a business facing criticism from competitors who can no longer compete against it. I told them that I would continue to press the DOJ to get to the bottom of the story."

So, I did a little Civics 101 research on this House Sub-Committee and here is the membership and States represented by the members. I did not research their political affiliations; in fact, when you go to the USGovernment:House of Representative Website, you cannot FIND their political affiliations listed, which is as it should be.

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property

Mr. Lamar Smith, Texas, Chairman

B-351A Rayburn HOB, Tel: 202-225-5741

Mr. Henry Hyde -Illinois
Mr. Howard Berman -California
Mr. Elton Gallegly -California
Mr. John Conyers -Michigan
Mr. Bob Goodlatte -Virginia
Mr. Rick Boucher -Virginia
Mr. William Jenkins -Tennessee
Ms. Zoe Lofgren -California
Mr. Spencer Bachus -Alabama
Ms. Maxine Waters -California
Mr. Mark Green -Wisconsin
Mr. Martin Meehan -Massachusetts
Mr. Ric Keller -Florida
Mr. William Delahunt -Massachusetts
Ms. Melissa Hart -Pennsylvania
Mr. Robert Wexler -Florida
Mr. Mike Pence -Indiana
Ms. Tammy Baldwin -Wisconsin
Mr. J. Randy Forbes -Virginia
Mr. Anthony Weiner - New York, Brooklyn
Mr. John Carter -Texas

Found this more recent article in Rolling Stone dated April 2004

CLEAR CHANNEL GOES TO TRIAL
Rolling Stone
Steve Knopper
April 20, 2004

Concert and radio giant charged with crushing competition

In a legal setback for the world's largest concert promoter, Clear Channel Communications, a U.S. District Court judge granted a jury trial to a Denver competitor that accuses the company of "monopolistic and predatory practices."
Judge Edward W. Nottingham's 125-page ruling, which mentions Puddle of Mudd, Orgy and the Tattoo the Earth Tour (headlined by Slipknot), says the evidence suggests Clear Channel illegally reduced radio airplay for artists who booked concert tours with competing promoters.

"We feel pretty vindicated," says Jesse Morreale, co-owner of Nobody in Particular Presents, which filed the lawsuit against the San Antonio, Texas, radio-and-concert conglomerate in August 2001.

Clear Channel's chief legal officer, Andrew Levin, also responded positively to the ruling, noting that Nottingham threw out some of the most serious charges. He decided, for example, that Clear Channel did not have a monopoly on Denver's rock-concert market, because it controlled less than seventy percent of the business. "A few remaining parts of the case will proceed to trial," Levin says. "And we're confident these allegations ultimately will be dismissed, as well."

But evidence in court documents suggests that Clear Channel -- which owns more than 1,200 radio stations -- aimed to severely damage its Denver competitors and the artists who worked with them. The most dramatic details are found in e-mails from Michael O'Connor, director of programming for Clear Channel's five FM stations in Denver. When the 2001 Styx/Bad Company tour selected House of Blues as its promoter, O'Connor instructed his radio underlings to "crush" HOB and avoid mentioning the concert on its classic-rock stations. O'Connor added, "Let's get our frell out."

Testimony from managers at Roadrunner Records and Reprise also indicates that bands agreed to play Clear Channel venues because they feared losing airplay on Clear Channel stations if they signed with a competitor. Nobody in Particular, the Denver promoter, also accuses the company of paying artists sky-high tour salaries to kill competition.

If these claims are upheld -- the trial starts August 2nd -- other cases would likely follow, says John Solow, an antitrust expert and professor at the University of Iowa: "It would open the door to lots of people saying, 'You did it to us, too!'"

Doug Kauffman, Nobody in Particular's president and founder, says he just wants to do business as he did before Clear Channel had so much power. "We hope [the case] sets some precedent that would stop this kind of heavy-handed behavior and give us independent companies some relief," he says. "So we can operate like we always have."

[ACcountryFan]

The case of NIPP v. Clear Channel has wrapped up. the story is on the home page of Radio and Records.

http://www.rronline.com

i don't know how to bring articles over from other places so if anyone wants to know about this, they can go R&R's web-page!

[clayMaine-iac]

Lawsuit Against Clear Channel Settled

Denver concert promoter Nobody In Particular Presents today resolved an antitrust case against Clear Channel Entertainment — which also promotes concerts in the market — just two months after Judge Edward Nottingham shot down NIPP's argument that Clear Channel controlled 50% of the Denver concert market. However, Nottingham allowed charges to proceed that Clear Channel denied NIPP access to advertising on Clear Channel's eight Denver stations, and also that it denied artists access to both ad time and airtime for their songs unless they agreed to perform at Clear Channel Entertainment venues. Commenting on the settlement, NIPP president Doug Kauffman said, "This was a long and difficult battle and we are very happy with this agreement." Clear Channel EVP/Chief Legal Officer Andy Levin added, "Clear Channel admitted no wrongdoing in connection with the lawsuit, but we are pleased to have the matter behind us." Terms of the settlement were not disclosed, but NIPP attorney John Francis told R&R back in April that NIPP was seeking a ""significant" amount in monetary damages from Clear Channel.

Thanks, AC
R & R