B
Braswell
Guest
I'm sure most have at least skimmed the information about the most recent payola probe. As a small market broadcaster, I'm tickled to see the "big dogs" get bit. For years, I've said that these guys were getting paid for airplay, via paid commercial airtime.
I didn't like that, and here's why. First, I've never understood the reason "pay for play" was illegal. Who the heck cares? The average listener has never completely agreed with the methodolgy used in selecting playlist additions. So, the record companies pay to get a record added. Doesn't mean the public will rush to make a purchase. Still, it would be the major market stations that receive the bucks.
Where my rub comes, is having to pay the G(*##%&@)d music royalties (legalized extortion) to ASCAP, SESAC and BMI. I'm not against the songwriters, but their payment should not come from the hard dug nickles, dimes and quarters of smaller radio stations.
I've always thought that the record companies should cover that expense.
It's an un-winable argument. <P ID="signature">______________
Jay Braswell - Moderator
Atlanta/North Florida/South Carolina/Georgia Boards</P>
I didn't like that, and here's why. First, I've never understood the reason "pay for play" was illegal. Who the heck cares? The average listener has never completely agreed with the methodolgy used in selecting playlist additions. So, the record companies pay to get a record added. Doesn't mean the public will rush to make a purchase. Still, it would be the major market stations that receive the bucks.
Where my rub comes, is having to pay the G(*##%&@)d music royalties (legalized extortion) to ASCAP, SESAC and BMI. I'm not against the songwriters, but their payment should not come from the hard dug nickles, dimes and quarters of smaller radio stations.
I've always thought that the record companies should cover that expense.
It's an un-winable argument. <P ID="signature">______________
Jay Braswell - Moderator
Atlanta/North Florida/South Carolina/Georgia Boards</P>