Danemix
27-07-2005, 06:47
I was reading several articles on the subject and thought I'd post them here for you all to discuss.
http://money.cnn.com/2004/10/22/news/newsmakers/spitzer_records/
SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT: Spitzer's `pay-for-play' probe yields $10 million settlement
Associated Press
Published July 26, 2005
NEW YORK -- Sony BMG Music Entertainment on Monday agreed to pay $10 million and stop bribing radio stations to feature its artists in what a state official called a more sophisticated generation of the payola scandals of decades ago.
The agreement springs from an investigation by New York Atty. Gen. Eliot Spitzer, who called the practice "pervasive" in the industry and suggested other music industry giants could face similar penalties.
Pay-for-play "is driving the industry, and it is wrong," Spitzer said.
Sony BMG, whose labels include hundreds of artists from Tony Bennett to Beyonce Knowles and the Dixie Chicks, said some of its employees had engaged in "wrong and improper" practices.
The company said it looked forward to "defining a new, higher standard in radio promotion" but did not say whether it had fired or disciplined any of those employees. A spokeswoman did not return a call seeking further comment.
A 1960 federal law and related state laws bar record companies from offering undisclosed financial incentives in exchange for airplay. Asked why he did not bring criminal charges in the case, Spitzer noted those laws governing pay-for-play are more specific and difficult to violate than the civil laws.
Source:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0507260115jul26,1,7604176.story?coll=chi-business-hed
More information can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payola#Payola
http://digitalmusic.weblogsinc.com/entry/3634176763128386/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163634,00.html
Personally, I don't see what’s wrong with this practice. What’s the difference between paying a radio station to air songs and showing an ad for laundry detergent on television? Both are just trying to get consumers to buy their product.
Some may argue that this undermines the music’s legitimacy; that this is just a way of selling out. But it’s called the “music biz” for a reason. It’s a business with marketing, sales, and people depending on it for their paychecks.
My only complaint is this: Why can’t they drop all the glossy, studio-produced pop and replace it with good music from talented people? Surely this would sell better anyway?
http://money.cnn.com/2004/10/22/news/newsmakers/spitzer_records/
SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT: Spitzer's `pay-for-play' probe yields $10 million settlement
Associated Press
Published July 26, 2005
NEW YORK -- Sony BMG Music Entertainment on Monday agreed to pay $10 million and stop bribing radio stations to feature its artists in what a state official called a more sophisticated generation of the payola scandals of decades ago.
The agreement springs from an investigation by New York Atty. Gen. Eliot Spitzer, who called the practice "pervasive" in the industry and suggested other music industry giants could face similar penalties.
Pay-for-play "is driving the industry, and it is wrong," Spitzer said.
Sony BMG, whose labels include hundreds of artists from Tony Bennett to Beyonce Knowles and the Dixie Chicks, said some of its employees had engaged in "wrong and improper" practices.
The company said it looked forward to "defining a new, higher standard in radio promotion" but did not say whether it had fired or disciplined any of those employees. A spokeswoman did not return a call seeking further comment.
A 1960 federal law and related state laws bar record companies from offering undisclosed financial incentives in exchange for airplay. Asked why he did not bring criminal charges in the case, Spitzer noted those laws governing pay-for-play are more specific and difficult to violate than the civil laws.
Source:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0507260115jul26,1,7604176.story?coll=chi-business-hed
More information can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payola#Payola
http://digitalmusic.weblogsinc.com/entry/3634176763128386/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163634,00.html
Personally, I don't see what’s wrong with this practice. What’s the difference between paying a radio station to air songs and showing an ad for laundry detergent on television? Both are just trying to get consumers to buy their product.
Some may argue that this undermines the music’s legitimacy; that this is just a way of selling out. But it’s called the “music biz” for a reason. It’s a business with marketing, sales, and people depending on it for their paychecks.
My only complaint is this: Why can’t they drop all the glossy, studio-produced pop and replace it with good music from talented people? Surely this would sell better anyway?