Fresh Air is an essential manual on marketing radio stations and the radio industry, by Mark Ramsey. Read the Surprise! The music industry lies!
And they do it with research.
Check the "media center" tab on the Music First Coalition website and you'll see a glaring example of this.
This is the front organization for the labels and the RIAA in their war on Radio.
The lie is a quotation from a study called "Don't Play it Again Sam: Radio Play, Record Sales, and Property Rights," and it's published by an academic at the University of Texas. But not just any academic, it's the one heading up something called the "Center for the Analysis of Property Rights and Innovation" which sounds very much like a magnet for support dollars from big media rights-holders.
In the paper itself (which you can download here) I find no indication of who financed or supported the effort, but the interests involved are clear, and nowhere is the term "consumer" in the name of the sponsoring organization. Where there's smoke, the saying goes, there's usually fire.
Here's the questionable quotation, featured prominently on Music First's site:
Radio does not have the positive impact on record sales normally attributed to it. Instead, it appears to have an economically important negative impact, implying that overall radio listening is more of a substitute for the purchase of sound recordings than it is a compliment.
Got that?
Radio doesn't sell music, say the labels.
The same labels that advertise in your trades, support your live shows, beg you to play their tunes, call you every single week, wine and dine you, debate your music research, monitor your adds, and - on occasion - offer the stray illegal bribe.
Those labels.
This fundamental conceit aside, there are numerous fatal problems with this study.
First and most important, the researcher lumps ALL music formats together. That is, he assumes an Oldies fan or a Classic Rock fan is the same as a CHR or Hip Hop or Alternative fan. Everybody in radio and everybody in music knows that the average Oldies and Classic Rock fan doesn't buy music. But this analyst foolishly makes no such distinction. And in so doing, he squashes the obvious positive impact on the music industry caused by those formats which traffic in new music. This is a very stupid mistake, and the fact that the music industry is showcasing it should humiliate them to no end.
Second, statistically speaking, "correlation is not causation." That is, just because some radio fans don't buy music doesn't mean it's because they listen to the radio. It could simply mean they have purchased all the music they like and don't buy what they hate. This is why, for example, the format's called "Oldies" and not "Newies." But instead of noting this, the author of the study draws an implication which suits the presumed sponsors of the study rather than the truth.
Third, even if we accept the conclusion that some radio listeners don't buy music and further accept that radio satisfies whatever need they have, the author of the study doesn't acknowledge the tangible difference between the stealing of music via P2P and the fact that radio stations do indeed already pay considerable license fees to play the music industry's content on the public airwaves. This notion that radio is getting something for nothing is downright offensive.
So perhaps the music industry can do itself a favor and remove the ridiculous citation for this deeply flawed study from its website before it embarrasses itself any further.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/9344/19415670
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Surprise! The music industry lies!:
No question that this is a ridiculous study and one has to wonder how it could be cited with a straight face. Nonetheless, I believe radio should pay performance royalties. Radio moves as much music as other sources that pay these royalties so it is difficult to continue to justify their exemption.
Check out the Ad-Supported Music Central blog:
http://ad-supported-music.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Marc Cohen | June 19, 2007 at 06:58 AM
Maybe I'm not the average Oldies and Classic Rock fan, but I buy tons of music in those formats (among others). What's more, I've bought most of the stuff I love two or three times at least.
Take the Beatles. I bought the American singles and vinyl albums. Then the British import albums. Then the Japanese imports on virgin vinyl. Then the Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab half-speed mastered box set. Then the first CDs, which only 20 years later are about to get their first sonic upgrade (I suppose we fans are responsible for that idiotic delay too, right, music industry bigwigs?). Will I buy them all yet again? You bet! That's why they call us fans. It's short for fanatics, remember? After how many purchases will I earn the right to have these files on my computer without fear of a bogus lawsuit?
Are there any listeners to these formats that didn't buy at least one volume of the Beatles Anthology? Is there a single pop music fan of any description who has only bought Pet Sounds once? Will just about everyone in the known universe buy the Rolling Stones BBC sessions if they are ever released officially?
We all learned about these artists, and the artists in nearly every other genre, from radio airplay. Many of us have bought their entire catalogues not once but multiple times. To now be told that radio doesn't sell records and that we listeners are a bunch of freeloaders is more than an insult, it's a stupendous lie. It will not stand. I have a feeling that congress is about to hand the labels a well-deserved smackdown that will leave their ears ringing for years.
But then there's an easy way to verify what they really believe, as you note, Mark. Don't listen to what these people say, just watch what they do. Labels who have frequently paid bribes to stations and DJs to get their (usually lousy) records played are revealing exactly what they think of the value of airplay.
If they spent less time being disingenuous demagogues and more time creatively enhancing and expanding their catalogues, then even niches like Oldies and Classic Rock would be thought of as living formats connected to living consumers who do indeed buy records...when they have a reason to.
Posted by: Kurt Luchs | June 19, 2007 at 07:49 AM
"First and most important, the researcher lumps ALL music formats together."
They also lump all radio together.
The main thrust of this web page is about "corporate radio." Yet only one third of radio is owned by the big corporations.
However, their royalty would apply to all radio stations, regardless of ownership, and regardless of format.
So it doesn't matter if your station is own by Clear Channel or a church, you pay.
And they call that fair.
I really wonder who approved the manifesto that's on that web site. I doubt very much that the labels or the artists (other than Don henly, who hates everything) approved it. It reads very much like the anti-media websites that are on the web. I think the real story about this site and this group needs to be told.
Posted by: George | June 19, 2007 at 07:51 AM
"Radio moves as much music as other sources that pay these royalties..."
I disagree. Radio moves much more. I can produce numbers for you.
The real issue though is that if a service sells music, it shouldn't pay a royalty. Airplay is its own compensation. So internet and satellite should be freed of all performance royalties. It's only fair! Otherwise, we should charge them for airtime, the way we do all other commercial enterprises who seek airtime. Even politicians must pay for airtime. Why do record labels get off free? This is why Congress will ignore this latest temper tantrum from the spoiled over-paid brats.
Posted by: George | June 19, 2007 at 03:02 PM
"Instead, it appears to have an economically important negative impact, "
If this is a provable fact then artists should indeed demand payment from radio stations. They should also march to the nearest courthouse and start filing civil claims for damages.
Of course they won't do that because the assertion is absurd. Ridiculous. Moronic.
I find it interesting that the first artist picture to pop-up when arriving at the MusicFirst website is Hank Williams Jr. There's an interesting case study:
When HWJ was flying high in the 1980s, selling out arenas and raking in the dough, it was on the strength of solid radio hits. Great radio records spun in high rotation. The benefits accrued to Radio in high ratings, Warner Brothers in strong record sales, and Jr in huge ticket sales. Win-Win-Win.
But in the early 90s HWJ started turning out crap records. Anybody remember "Fax Me A Beer" or "Hog Wild?" Seriously crappy records. Country radio wouldn't play them. Without radio play it was over for HWJ.
Now he believes he should be paid for airplay. His new stuff isn't being played, so that ain't goona be a cash cow. And his hits of the 80s rewarded him and his record company greatly already. He's been paid.
Posted by: Richard | June 19, 2007 at 03:04 PM
If the record industry truly believes this we can't really charge them for the music we played, since we selected that ourselves.
We should however immediately (and retroactively) bill them a couple hundred bucks an hour for every minute we spend on the phone with record reps begging us to add their tunes. We should bill them for the time we spent doing record promotions, and we should bill them for the time we spend sorting through the crap they send us. We can't bill them for the time we spend playing records we select, but we can bill them for the time we spend identifying their record to the public.
Record companies would then have to shut down their promotion departments.
Wait, there's the savings they need to be profitable again, so they ought to just leave radio alone.
Posted by: Mike | June 20, 2007 at 12:42 PM
I do believe that radio,Internet airplay of music tracks is of huge promotional value to the artists and labels. If artists and labels paid some for airplay priority then maybe the radio stations could cut back on advertising. It is the heavy load of advertisng that has long lasting issues for broadcast radio. There should be some way for broadcast radio and Internet radio to earn a percentage cut of the success of music, concerts and merchandise sales. This would drive the broadcast radio and Internet radio to air popular music.
Posted by: Rob Greenlee | July 07, 2007 at 08:36 PM