Fuck You, Pay Me
By "The Truth"
February 26, 2006
A lot has been written about "payola" (the illegal practice of record companies paying radio stations to play their artists' songs more than others) in recent months. Even Dateline NBC has profiled the recent crackdown on bribery in the radio business. We have all been taught in the music business that payola = bad. However, the practice has been used since the inception of radio and I don't see it ever really stopping. Reading so much about it lately has caused me to ponder its supposedly negative repercussions. Why is it that payola is so evil? Has it really ruined the record industry?
In many of the recent writeups on the subject, Sony Records has been singled out (it should be stated that SonyBMG settled a lawsuit on this matter after evidence was presented and proven). Artists such as Jennifer Lopez and Celine Dion have been named as just a couple of the mainstream performers embroiled in this mess. It is alleged that monetary rewards were distributed to radio stations across the country if and when they agreed to give top rotation to La Lopez and Mrs. Angelil. Is this true? I have no idea (although court papers do say that it is). Do Jennifer Lopez and Celine Dion receive a lot of radio play? Yes. Was the only reason their songs were played so often because the program directors were paid kickbacks to play them? I have no idea. What I do know however is that both of those artists have large fanbases. Jennifer Lopez was a popular (I didn't say talented) actress before she recorded her debut album "On The Six". Hoardes of young girls admired her good looks and seemingly sweet persona and probably would've bought anything she released. Think about it. If a movie like "The Wedding Planner" could open up at #1 in the box office, anything can happen. So are Jennifer Lopez' albums only successes because of payola? I don't think so.
Those fighting the practice of payola are using the defense that payola gives an unfair advantage to some artists. Playing their songs morning, noon, and night, will undoubtedly make them sell more than lesser-known artists. I'd like to know how they came to this conclusion in the first place. Music is subjective meaning one person can hate a song while another loves it. Therefore, playing something over and over and over again on the radio still won't cause everyone to love it. True, it gives the song exposure. But does exposure automatically mean hits? No. Look at an artist like Rihanna. Def Jam put a lot of promotion behind her last year in order to build up her debut album "Music of the Sun". Her lead single, "Pon De Replay" was played on Urban stations and Top 40 practically every five minutes. I by no means am saying Def Jam bribed anyone for airplay (and I have never even heard such a thing) , I am just trying to prove that excessive radio play does not always equal big sales. Rihanna's album subsequently tanked.
And on the other hand, if Eliot Spitzer and his cronies are using Jennifer Lopez' success as an example that payola works, than they are barking up the wrong tree. True, Jennifer Lopez' songs may suck. And true, her songs get played a lot regardless of them sucking or not. But the bulk of her sales are not from those who have heard her song SO much on radio that they just had to go out to the record store to buy it. In the same vein, I do not like Celine Dion or Jennifer Lopez. I know this already. So you can play one of their songs for me as much as you like. I am still not going to wander into The Virgin Megastore like a zombie repeating "give me Jennifer...give me Celine". It is J.Lo's young female fans running to the Best Buys and the Sam Goodys of the world to snatch it up. They are the same youngsters trolling internet message boards gathering up the fan club troops to flood radio stations with requests for her latest single. Half the time the radio stations are just playing the song because their listeners want to hear it. Then again, other new artists who are just like Jennifer Lopez have tried to breakthrough in the past few years and just didn't cut it. Is this just because Mrs. Anthony's record label had the money to buy her airplay and other upstart artists' labels didn't? Could be, but what's so out of the ordinary about that?
Those with money always have had more of an "in" in this world. A regular Joe may not be able to score courtside seats to a Nets game (notice I didn't say Knicks because not even a regular Joe would want those) but someone with real money probably could. A regular Joe may not be able to gain access to an exclusive V.I.P. nightclub on its opening night but someone with real money probably could. Is this fair? I guess not but this world is run by money. If its taken payola to make you realize that then you're an idiot. Whoever ends up finding those tickets for the rich guy (a broker), or unbuckling the red velvet rope outside the club (bouncer) is getting something in return. They are in charge of an in-demand service and they can be bought. Much like Program Directors supposedly can. Again, is it fair? Not really but life is not always fair. Get over it.
Don't get it twisted. I understand that payola is illegal and that is why Eliot Spitzer focused on his crackdown. My question is aimed at the reason its illegal in the first place. What is so wrong with payola? People are not forced to listen to radio in the first place. In the age of the iPod, I believe that whatever's promoted on the iTunes music store homepage has more of a chance of influencing people to buy a song than payola does. So what's next then? Will too much promotion be deemed illegal? Is it unfair if one company has the money to buy more ad space than others? Not really. Because in the long run the artist who signs to a major label is guaranteed more ad space and more radio play but they will make less money than an artist who goes at it independently. They may not get the front cover of Rolling Stone and Vibe Magazine but they do get more money to line their pockets with. There's an upside and a downside to it all. It's up to you to decide what road you want to take and I don't think it's necessary to attack the bigger cars on the road when you travel. Just do you, don't let the big dogs get you down, and work it out.
# # #
