In his speech, Barry thanked radio and mentioned that he could not have been successful without it. Did I mention that he's sold more than 76 million records? (Something I did not know is that he wrote jingles, like McDonald's "You Deserve a Break Today," "I am Stuck on Band-Aid and Band-Aid's Stuck on Me," and "Like a Good Neighbor, State Farm Is There.")
Those of us in radio who have met boatloads of successful recording artists have been told hundreds of times that radio is the reason for their success. Yes, they are talented indeed, but many talented musicians never made it until they received radio airplay.
Right now, artists are still talking about radio's value to their careers. But the raging battle over performance royalties could soon have artists running scared that the labels will punish them if they say how they really feel. After all, are the labels driving this initiative out of the goodness of their hearts, to help artists?
The split on royalties under the Performance Rights Act would be 50-50 between the artists and the copyright owner in a recording, which is, of course, nearly always the record label. Some very well known artists -- most recently Bono -- have spoken out in favor of the royalties, saying they'll help new and struggling artists.
But Congress should be asking the artists who've testified at hearings on the PRA, such as Billy Corgan or Nancy Sinatra, to talk about the contract practices of the labels, and how little money some current and former superstars have actually ended up with after label chargebacks. Perhaps they should subpoena some talent-label contracts to see what really goes on.
When the next hearings come before up before Congress, I'm sure the labels will parade more artists before the public and lawmakers. "We deserve to get paid," they will say. Well, so do we. Labels have made billions more than radio has from free radio airplay.
Though the labels want to pretend airplay is no longer important because of MySpace, Internet radio, iTunes, etc., they fail to mention the tremendous amount of music that is still being stolen -- something they cannot prevent. Because of the demographics of sites like MySpace, reliance on those sites alone to expose music could easily lead to a higher percentage of file-sharing, and much less exposure to the audiences who are still buying tunes after hearing them reinforced over and over again on the radio. Is it possible radio still has value to the labels? Of course, how could it not?
But the labels won't say it in public any more, even if the artists still do. Every Grammy and Country Music Awards show, including the most recent ones, has been filled with artists saying, "I'd like to thank radio." (Hmmm. I'll bet that doesn't go on much longer, especially with pro-radio quotes regularly turning up in the NAB's anti-royalties press releases.)
Perhaps Congress should investigate why labels still retain independent record promoters to work radio if airplay doesn't matter. Perhaps Congress should remember the efforts of Eliot Spitzer in New York a few years ago, and the DOJ investigation of pay-for-play and payola.
The dirty little secret is that radio does matter. Ninety-four percent of Americans are listening to radio every week, and that cannot be ignored.
The labels have been devastated by illegal downloads. But this desperate move to take money out of radio's hide seems so.... well, the word is ungrateful, for the wonderful partnership shared over the years and billions of dollars in free promotion. And what if they're wrong, and they do need radio? Without radio airplay, the labels could sink deeper.
The financial hardship these proposed royalties will create for radio will result in fewer music-formatted radio stations, stations and groups seeking out royalty-free deals with fresh artists, and could even lead to more radio bankruptcies. But the labels of today have proven to be greedy, short-term thinkers lacking vision.
So it was nice to hear Barry Manilow and Vince Gill thank radio, even though it was behind closed doors and to a small exclusive group of broadcasters. We may soon stop hearing any public thanks to the industry that built the record labels and their artists.
Eric - nostalgia aside - it's no longer 1974.
Radio airplay is important - of course.
A lot of label people are still bonused on the 1974 systems of getting adds and spins on radio.
But radio no longer has the hit making power of the "good old days".
Where is today's Barry Manilow?
When was the last time radio created a Barry Manilow?
You correctly point out radio's power HAS been in moving units for the labels. For that power to move units it was exempted from paying the PERFORMERS of the music radio plays a royalty.
Radio's power to create stars and make hits was confined to a very specific condition - that radio was the ONLY source for mainstream music consumption.
That is no longer that case and radio no longer has that much power.
And now the power balance in the relationship has changed dramatically.
For a variety of reasons (all having to do with audiences having more choice) - radio cannot deliver the music sales it once did.
When radio can no longer deliver significantly more music sales than any other music media - why should its performance royalty exemption remain when everyone else has to pay it?
Posted by: Jeff Schmidt | April 25, 2009 at 01:49 PM