PDA

View Full Version : Drummer of semisonic weighs in on Spitzer's Payola Crusade



academic punk
08-13-2005, 01:01 PM
Crappy band. Interesting Op-Ed piece that was originally published in the New York Times...

PAYOLA: A player's perspective

by Jake Schlicter

When Eliot Spitzer, New York's attorney general, announced recently that his office had settled payola allegations with Sony BMG Music Entertainment, he documented how record companies get songs on the radio as part of a corrupt system that few understand.

I certainly didn't -- until my band, Semisonic, found itself flying around the country in 1996, visiting radio stations and ingratiating ourselves to program directors, just as our debut single, "Down in Flames," was about to be released.

Knowing that our record company, MCA, would deduct our promotional expenses from the band's share of future record sales, I kept tabs on our costs -- flights, meals, hotels. After visiting stations in a few cities across the country, I estimated that we had spent close to $20,000. We'd have to sell tens of thousands of records just to pay for this transcontinental jaunt. I called our manager. How much had we spent on promotion overall? Close to $500,000.

This was my introduction to the pay-for-play system, one element of which is broadly referred to as payola. As I learned, the bulk of our promotional dollars had gone to independent record promoters, gatekeepers who control access to the airwaves. The promoters pay commercial radio stations, putatively to look at their playlists, but in reality, as those in the business know, to get their clients' songs on the air. Then they charge record companies for their efforts.

The cost of promoting a new song, nationwide, can be hundreds of thousands of dollars -- money that is taken out of whatever the musicians earn. Payola laws forbid a radio station from accepting a payment to play a song without disclosing that payment to its listeners. But because promoters pay the stations up front and collect later from record companies, the lines are sufficiently blurred, making it hard to prove that any quid pro quo transaction took place between a label and a station.

We also played at radio-station festivals, where our appearance assured us at least a modest degree of airplay. (One executive referred to this practice as "Show-ola.")

Other shady methods were employed on our behalf: "You don't want to know," one person on the MCA promotion staff told me. The goal, of course, was to get a single on the radio and keep it there as long as possible to win over listeners. (The longer something new is on the air, the greater the chance that people will grow to like it.)

Thus, I was not surprised by the details from Spitzer's investigation: memos outlining payments in return for spins; contests where a station flies lucky listeners to exotic destinations to hear a band perform, sponsored by a record label in return for airplay; a flat-screen television that was supposed to be given away on air finding a home in a program director's living room.

That's not to say there isn't another side to the story. One person I know, a man with a long history of taking unknown bands to platinum sales, does not look forward to the day when money can't buy airplay. "How will new bands get played?" he asked, talking to me on the condition that I not name him.

It's not an unreasonable question. I know from personal experience that most program directors are reluctant to find slots for new artists.

That same person complains that payola is misunderstood: "You can't buy a hit. You can only buy a chance for a song to become a hit." Again, his point is valid. There are countless artists who have seen their future sales eaten up by promotional costs for singles that went nowhere. In the case of my band, MCA spent more than $1 million on radio promotion and we had only one big hit.

In 1998, MCA released our song "Closing Time." As with our previous singles, the early research by radio stations seeking to gauge how listeners might react to the song was not promising. However, MCA's promotional efforts kept it on the air until listener responses swung in our favor.

Once "Closing Time" took off, radio stations wouldn't let go of it. When MCA wanted to release our follow-up single, the promotion department asked program directors to ease "Closing Time" out of heavy rotation to make room for our next song. Many stations refused, citing its continued popularity.

Payola gets a song on the radio. If it becomes a hit, radio works it to death. In this day of consolidated radio ownership and programming, my friend suggests, eliminating payola could mean that commercial stations would become even more monotonous, if that can be imagined.

To my mind, however, the difficulty of picturing a world beyond payola is reason enough to cheer Spitzer along. Payola restricts access to the public airways; only artists whose labels are willing and able to pay get played. Listeners who might enjoy something else won't hear it from stations on the take. And when fans go to the record store, they'll find that payola has driven up the price of CDs.

By the end of our three-album run with MCA, Semisonic had sold close to 2 million records, but we were a long way from recouping the costs of radio promotion. Most recording artists would love to see the current system brought down, even if they can't imagine what would replace it.

Jacob Slichter is the author of "So You Wanna Be a Rock & Roll Star: How I Machine-Gunned a Roomful of Record Executives and Other True Tales From a Drummer's Life."

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:jP4OID8olXMJ:www.startribune.com/stories/389/5540770.html+slichter+payola&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Big Train
08-13-2005, 04:58 PM
I was a good read and I know several execs he names in the book. His version of events is definitely interesting, but sometimes blurs the lines like he says. Semisonic was a one hit wonder. In a just world, MCA should have just stopped with them after "Closing TIme". But that would have precluded them from spending money on the two duds. MCA always had a problem defining a hit artist and a hit record, which are two totally different things. In the process, they overspent millions of dollars, which is why Semisonic never got paid.

I've never had a problem with payola. I've only ever had a problem with disclosure. If they said "This next song, or hour, or block is brought to you by MCA" then no problem. It's the fact that they try to base everything on a stupid premise, which was NEVER true in the first place, that what is being played is what the public wants. TV doesn't work on popularity compilations. It works on ratings, as does radio. They are trying to find what works best for them in a period of time. "Closing TIme" worked well for six months, so they beat the piss out of it,because it kept ratings up. If it were PBS, with no commercials, supported by tax free donations, then I think Spitzer would have a real argument. All of this hoopla right now are letter-of-the-law violations which drive up billings for his tenure and make him look like a "crime-fighter" without hurting any major industry players.

With CC, not much will happen. His term is winding down and they will stall till he is gone (18 months), then the next guy will find a way to drop it. The labels will cough up quick and be done with it. Life goes on..

fe_lung
08-13-2005, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by Big Train
I was a good read and I know several execs he names in the book. His version of events is definitely interesting, but sometimes blurs the lines like he says. Semisonic was a one hit wonder. In a just world, MCA should have just stopped with them after "Closing TIme". But that would have precluded them from spending money on the two duds. MCA always had a problem defining a hit artist and a hit record, which are two totally different things. In the process, they overspent millions of dollars, which is why Semisonic never got paid.

Actually, Closing Time is off of their second record, Feling Strangely Fine, that song helped its record sell fairly well. Their follow up (All About Chemistry) did ok, but didn't improve on the sales of FSF, and they were dropped from MCA after that. They actually are a pretty decent band who had flashes of greatness. Time and proper promotion could have paid off for them. However, one can't really fault MCA for being unwilling to take that risk.


He does make a good point, however, that pay-to-play does limit the exposure an artist can get. However, I think that this is a bigger issue than just radio. Certainly, A&R & Promotion departments set priorities, and if an act isn't a priority, then they can be dead in the water real quick. Can anyone doubt that Dave hasn't been a priority at his labels since about '91? No promotions, no push for the single on local radio, no MTV contests (in fact, almost no vidoes at all). It all adds up to a big problem for an artist.

academic punk
08-14-2005, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by Big Train
like he says. Semisonic was a one hit wonder. In a just world, MCA should have just stopped with them after "Closing TIme". But that would have precluded them from spending money on the two duds.



Interesting. I thought traditional A&R was always about developing the artist, finding thier niche, and finding a happy medium between sales and their own personal artistic goals. I know back when artists would be signed to multi-album deals, the intent was much more on "The first album will introduce the artist to the public, the next album we'll consolidate their strengths, and the third is when we can really maybe break them wide open">

I'm generalizing, but you say MCA should have employed a much more "cut and run" technique...get your hit and cut your ties.

At that rate, shouldn't they have been dropped instantly after their first album didn't sell? If that happened then they and MCA wouldn't have enjoyed the success of Closing Time (thoug, personally, I would've been happier for it!). And surely it was worth the labels while to "play one more hand of poker" with the third album after they scored so big with the second. (especially b/c if the third album HAD been a hit, MCA would have really looked like jackasses...kind of like IRS and Belinda Carlisle back in the '80s)

What does an A&R man do these days? I knw it's been different since at least the 60s when the A7R guy would even handpick the artists songs...Otis would have never gotten near "Try A Little Tenderness" if his label didn't force it on him (and he apparrently HATED the song).

But back to Spitzer, I think it is necessary for him to do what he did, if for no other reason than to keep the "corruption" (and I use the term loosely) in check. If you ignore one thing, it'll escalate to another and another, and keep rising from there. As attorney general, his job is to stop things early on and provide deterrants to further, deeper crimes.

Big Train
08-15-2005, 10:54 PM
To give you the analogy I always use to describe what it is I do: I am a stock analyst, specializing in music.

The job of an A&R guy nowadays is to determine size of the marketplace and traction artists have. With the amount of money on the line nowadays it is about figuring out how we get the home run the easiest. If I spend 5 million on Ashlee Simpson, I know I'm gonna get my money back. The promotion is already done because she has a TV show. 5 million on a band I just personally believe in is a much higher risk. With all the money going out the door on hit records, forget duds and piracy, I need to be right on. Most of what A&R does is research and selling acts up the chain of command. Which is getting harder and harder to do, which is why you see boutique labels everywhere now. In the glory days, if there ever were any, you could put out 2-3 records a year, working with the act and experimenting. Higher ups left you alone because there wasn't that much money on the line. Those days are long gone.

With payola, it's like I said, I am concerned about disclosure only. It may actually be ok for radio and the music consumer. Radio PD's are anal. They have hits that are working for them now, why do they care about a new track?

academic punk
08-21-2005, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by Big Train
To give you the analogy I always use to describe what it is I do: I am a stock analyst, specializing in music.

The job of an A&R guy nowadays is to determine size of the marketplace and traction artists have. With the amount of money on the line nowadays it is about figuring out how we get the home run the easiest. If I spend 5 million on Ashlee Simpson, I know I'm gonna get my money back. The promotion is already done because she has a TV show. 5 million on a band I just personally believe in is a much higher risk. With all the money going out the door on hit records, forget duds and piracy, I need to be right on. Most of what A&R does is research and selling acts up the chain of command. Which is getting harder and harder to do, which is why you see boutique labels everywhere now. In the glory days, if there ever were any, you could put out 2-3 records a year, working with the act and experimenting. Higher ups left you alone because there wasn't that much money on the line. Those days are long gone.

With payola, it's like I said, I am concerned about disclosure only. It may actually be ok for radio and the music consumer. Radio PD's are anal. They have hits that are working for them now, why do they care about a new track?


Sort of unrelated, but where is the underground these days?? You would think that with major labels haivng to spend so much money to generate a hit - and the need to play it safe b/c of the investment - that you would see such a fertile underground scene these days - kind of like in the '80s with bands like Sonic Youth and Black Flag and labels like SST and Dischord. But as far as I'm aware, there is no real "movement" or "culture"...these days, it's almost even hip to be the guy in the crowd who says "Hey, that "Toxic" video...excellent stuff!"

Terry
08-21-2005, 04:12 PM
Guess the part that is unsettling to me is treating music like any other product.. Am not naive enough to think that payola went away after Alan Freed and is only resurfacing today, and it's really not astonishing that it's going on now, considering the corporatized nature of just about everything around us today.

I'd like to think that some of the music that's getting play these days is driven by the expression of the artist, as opposed to the designs of marketing executives. Probably the best thing for the consumer is just to have the studios release the material the way the artist intended it, take a chance, and let the sales rise or sink of their own weight.