A prostitute is but one profession, some say the oldest profession, in which the "artist" sells his/her services for money. But why then are other professions all classified as prostitutes? I sold my programming talent for money. Why not the guitar player?
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Radio Is Dead? Really? What are we really saying?
- Thread starter b-turner
- Start date
A prostitute is but one profession, some say the oldest profession, in which the "artist" sells his/her services for money. But why then are other professions all classified as prostitutes? I sold my programming talent for money. Why not the guitar player?
We have created this mythology about artists. And it's a very strong myth that benefits the artist. It allows them to get away with a lot of things that neither you nor I can. And it's been my experience that they're very careful not to screw with that myth.
That's why the artist hires other people, who become the bad guys, so they can remain the enigma. The other people deal with the crass things like money, to allow the artist to focus on their art.
Last edited:
B
BOZ Profit
Guest
Wal Mart was JUST AN EXAMPLE. It could be Coca-Cola, it could be Lee's Jeans, it could be Shell Oil... So, NO I will not address that conflict because it was an example not a specific situation. The fact remains that radio does not care about who pays and who doesn't when they have (or think they have) something to gain. If a label pushes a song, the radio station jumps. That how it works. We know that.. when is a recent example of a label pushing a song and radio said no? And there would be nothing stopping "Target" from doing the same thing anyway...
Um.. most "artists" are in it for the money today, not the "art" and that is evidenced by what is played on the radio. The music that is artistic isn't usually mass appealing, so radio doesn't play it anymore... Not the "successful" stations, anyway.
Many of these "artists" are already "prostitutes". Have you seen the videos that are made to sell the albums? Have you seen what the women wear (or don't wear) when they perform? Sex sells. There is no art involved... Of course people call it art... read Ayn Rand's Fountainhead.
In my world, we deal with specifics not generalities. You gave me a specific and asked for a conflict, so I gave you one. If you were in a meeting with my team and changed the subject like that, you would have been yelled at for changing the subject. You come up with any product that advertises, and we have a conflict. Facebook and Twitter don't, TTBOMK advertise on radio. If they do, let me know.
So you're suggesting this as a way for an artist to make money, right? OK. I spend a lot of time with artists and managers, and I know a lot of managers who'd like their artists to promote products for money, and I've watched the artists dodge those kinds of things. There are so many easier ways to get sponsorship money without affecting your music that there is no need to it. The artist is in the control position here while in radio, the sponsor is in control. The roles are reversed. I know several artists who have fleets of cars and trucks from sponsors, and neither of them have ever mentioned the sponsor name in a song. Why do it when you don't have to? In radio, we're happy to sell naming rights or anything the sponsor wants. The artists can say no, and the sponsor will apologize for asking.
B
BOZ Profit
Guest
I said "imagine this" to give context to the idea. You said you saw conflicts, I presumed you meant with the idea not the example.
If ANYONE yells at me, I walk out (or I kick you out if it is my office) and we are done. Respect lost, relationship lost, referrals lost, business lost. If you cannot remain composed and professional and discuss things in an adult manner, we won't be doing business in any fashion.
It doesn't matter IF they do or not. They SHOULD. Anyone with any radio business sense knows this. Heck! Why stop with Facebook and Twitter... why not casually mention every business that does not advertise on radio a couple times an hour? Oh, because it's NOT good business, because then why should those businesses EVER pay? If I were an advertiser on radio, I would demand equal free time especially if I had already been a paying customer. Imagine political season... I'm sure there is an attorney that can make a case that Facebook and Twitter are getting millions of mentions daily on all radio and TV for FREE... so why not "insert politician here".
I'm actually suggesting a way for a brand to get free advertising, a la Facebook and Twitter. But yes, the "artist" wins in the deal too. Give the "artist" something they want and they will do it. Everyone has their price... Just listen to the radio and you will hear it in the quality of the "art" of the "music".. And if they are happy to attach their name to a product, it's not a far fetch to require they get what they want by giving the sponsor what they want. I'm sure a label could find a way to contractually obligate some "artist" somewhere to buy into it. Heck, throw in a video with almost naked women and I'm sure some male "artist" would do it.
BUT AGAIN as I initially said... the idea was mostly just for discussion sake. But if I was musically inclined, I'd take the idea to a brand and sell them on it. Jared took his weight loss story to Subway and sold out... what's the difference?
Last edited:
And yet I spent over 20 years with a high tech company that encourages dissension and that included getting passionate about your position. Yelling and arguing were acceptable but obviously you didn't go overboard by cussing or insulting your opponent. So long as THE ISSUE was the target being discussed and not the personalities involved there were very few limitations on what could be said in mixed company. And, of course, this behavior was only for internal discussions. Vendors, customers and cooperating companies were not ever to be subject to this behavior.
Different strokes for different folks.
Jared's not a recording artist with promo people begging us to get his record played. That's a bad example. You asked me a question, and that's my answer.
B
BOZ Profit
Guest
Well, I would say the example TheBigA used is that he/his team would be yelling AT ME for changing the subject. "Changing the subject" cannot really be the target of the yelling. It would have to be the personality that changed it getting yelled at, and that would be me.
If one makes a costly mistake, I can understand the reason why there would be yelling. In sports, athletes regularly get yelled at for mistakes. But in a situation where yelling is happening because the direction of the conversation is changing is purely adolescent behavior; a demand for attention.
So to qualify my comment, the yelling would have to have validation. There would have to be a professionally justifiable reason for yelling at me. Changing the subject is not a justified reason for yelling.
Would it make sense for me to yell at members for going off topic? Or simply and professionally guide everyone back? What gets the most respect?
B
BOZ Profit
Guest
Again you missed the CONTEXT. I said: "But if I was musically inclined, I'd take the idea to a brand and sell them on it. Jared took his weight loss story to Subway and sold out... what's the difference?"
You are taking Jared and applying that to the rest of the conversation. But I started a new paragraph, made comment that it is an idea I would take to a brand if I were musically inclined (selling out) and gave Jared as an example of a commercial sell out too... I knew you would not say anything bad about Jared, because it's a warm and fuzzy story.
But the fact is, he sold out to Subway to do their ads for many years... in exchange for his story. My idea would also be a sell out, because if I were a musical artist I would have no qualms about my idea. I get paid one way or another. Either for showing my face at an event for a sponsor, or singing a song about them. Just because one song is a commercial sell out does not mean all the rest are (for example: Shiny Happy People, REM).
Try keeping things in context and don't suggest your team will yell if everything is not kept tidy in a box. The world might be messy outside the box, but that is where the creativity is. Creativity cannot be boxed. It gets stifled and dies.
Let me repeat: Jared is paying for access, but if he was a recording artist with the same message, his promo people are begging me to play his record instead of another one that doesn't have a sponsorship message. That's a very different thing. Do you understand that difference? He wants to make money using my air signal, he is in a different sphere. If you want to buy an infomercial on my station, that's fine. We give you the rate card, and you pay it. But if you want to get free airplay, it's a different conversation. You are now in the SUBJECTIVE world, where I get to decide why I should play this song. Very different world. I don't have to play your records. Record labels can't "require" me to play something. I have lots of other songs I can choose if I'm so inclined. It's not unusual for the person making music decisions to have to DEFEND those decisions, and explain WHY he has added this song with a blatant commercial message. Legal might get involved. Some prosecutor might decide that there is a sense of impropriety for me to play this record. And the audience might rise up and sign petitions about this song. Shall I continue?
There are people on this board, and you know who they are, who hyper-focus on word, and completely miss the overall point. That's what you're doing here.
Let me add one more thing: I can't make a music decision without first hearing the music. Nothing happens until I hear the music. That's really the stopping point here. You're giving me a hypothetical idea about making a music decision and I haven't heard the song. Deal breaker. And if that's a frustrating to you, then it's obvious you're not a musician. The ONLY thing a musician cares about is you've heard the song.
B
BOZ Profit
Guest
You are STILL missing the CONTEXT: the idea of selling out. Jared sold out (forget that Subway is paying for spots.. that's not my point in mentioning Jared). What if there was a musical artist that had such a wonderful time at Busch Gardens that they wrote a song about it... took it to BG and said "I'll get this on the radio where you will get several months of free publicity but, I'd like you to pay me for it"... The label comes to you and says, "oh you want access to Artist A, well we have Artists B (the Busch Gardens song writer/artist) that we are pushing this month. Give us X number of spins this week and you've got 100 tickets to Artist's A concert, a trip to Busch Gardens and 50 cds to give away."
I would suggest everyone wants to make money using your (the public's) air signal. The advertisers want customers, the "artists" want to sell albums. The traffic service is selling spots, possibly the weather service too, if it is not in house. The non-profits that you run spots for free are also seeking to raise funds... the spots may not directly ask for funds, but the message is there... they need funds to exist. Even the DJ is making money using the air signal because you pay him/her to.
No you don't.. but your competition might. For this argument, the song is a good one. Maybe it's even already gone viral and listeners are jamming the phones requesting it because, gosh, watching the YouTube video is not enough! iTunes is showing it as the most downloaded song for the week! It's a national craze... Remember Career Opportunities? The whole movie took place inside of a Target store... Well, this song is totally about Busch Gardens! (Is TV not allowed to play Career Opportunities because it would essentially be a free 1 1/2 ad for Target?... dang, changing subject again..)
Record labels have the upper hand, you have established that already. So, I would say, yes they can... or they take something you want away: No more van wrap, no more A lister concert tickets, no more promotional items such as trips, for giveaways, etc.
By all means.. please do.
I was writing #192 while you were writing 193. Read #192. That's the end of the discussion. I don't care how good you think your idea is. If I don't hear the song, and I don't like the song, I'm not playing it. That's final. I don't want your concert tickets. I care about what my station sounds like. That is how I make my decisions.
B
BOZ Profit
Guest
I would love to know a song you shot down that a label came in and said they wanted it played... I mean REALLY wanted it played. You know... so much that the station extras were in balance. But you held firm and said "no this Sam Smith song sucks", and you gave up the extras because it was THAT important to you to not litter your (the public's) air signal with garbage.
Or what song has your test group ranked high but you still held your ground because you didn't like it...
Do these songs exist?
B
BOZ Profit
Guest
I'm not entirely sure this is true. Have you really listened to what is being produced these days? You play it because it "tests well", not because it sounds good to you. You've essentially said so already elsewhere...
Labels know not to talk that way to me. We make more money with our air signal than we'll ever make from concert tickets or extras. It's the one thing we CAN'T screw up. So until I hear the song, I'm done talking.
You're still talking in generalities. If a song tests well, then someone heard it. You haven't played this song for me. Goodbye.
Last edited:
Songs don't get tested before becoming new adds. You have to play them 100 to 125 times for the average listener to hear them even 5 times, and that's about the point at which a listener has either bonded with or rejected a new song.
We do have lots of support for adds, such as the trades, the airplay monitors and our own networking. So if we are uncertain, we can watch other stations before making the add. And sometimes songs we did not think had potential get adds at stations we respect, so we take another listen.
One thing most of us ignore is the whining from the record ducks. There are so many ways they can try to play us... my "favorite" is "... if I don't bring this song home, I am going to be fired". The worst one is when the duck asks to drop a previous song by their artist which is working great so we can play the unfamiliar new song only because it has been 12 weeks since the good song came out.
Forgot to mention that. It takes about five weeks for the research to kick in. But he's talking about before that. And I'm not sticking my neck out on a song I haven't heard.
There's a new artist who is a very high priority at the label. Lots of money being spent. They say it's the next big thing. There was a showcase, and I couldn't make it. They did one just for me. And yes, I see the potential of the artist, and I made my commitment. When I commit to an add, that's a big commitment of our time, prestige, and air signal. It's a serious decision. They respect that we're very careful in making this decision. And hopefully we're right about this one.
Last edited:
B
BOZ Profit
Guest
I knew I would get an answer with a non-answer.
As you know, there is no song.. this has been a purely hypothetical conversation. And hypothetically to make the conversation interesting, the song is a good one. You just don't like the idea and fear someone really doing it and succeeding with it. What if brands got big on product placement in pop songs? Possibly a whole revenue stream could be lost. Why should McDonald's pay for an ad when Eminem or Taylor Swift could mention them in a song for a fraction of the cost of a national ad buy and it be just as effective? These "artists" have influence... as you've noted, more so with the audience than the radio station does.
But we have learned a lot.. A LOT. Mostly by what you have chosen to ignore replying to.
- Status