Sony BMG to Settle New York Payola Investigation

turnitdown

$10 PayPal=Your Ad Here!!
Sony BMG to Settle New York Payola Investigation
Music giant makes a deal with New York Atty. Gen. Eliot Spitzer over case involving payments for airtime

By Charles Duhigg and Walter Hamilton, Times Staff Writer

Sony BMG Music Entertainment, the nation's second-largest music company, is expected as early as Monday to agree to a settlement with New York Atty. Gen. Eliot Spitzer in an ongoing payola investigation, said sources familiar with the talks.

Representatives of Sony BMG and Spitzer declined to detail ongoing discussions, but sources said the terms of the settlement might include promises that Sony BMG would not engage in certain practices and fines that might exceed $10 million. The sources requested anonymity because of the confidentiality of the discussions.

Sony BMG is one of at least four record companies Spitzer subpoenaed last fall as part of his inquiry into whether music corporations are skirting payola laws by hiring intermediaries to influence which songs are heard on public airwaves. Should Sony BMG reach an accord with Spitzer, it would be the first settlement in the investigation.

Insiders at other record companies said they expected that a Sony BMG settlement would spur other music corporations to agree to similar deals with Spitzer's office. Those executives said whatever fine Sony BMG might accept probably would also set the standard for other companies, which would be fined in proportion to each company's share of the U.S. market.

Last September, investigators in Spitzer's office subpoenaed executives at the four major record corporations -- Universal Music Group, Sony BMG, Warner Music Group and EMI Group -- to request copies of billing records, contracts, e-mails and other correspondence regarding the companies' relationships with independent music promoters who suggest new songs to radio programmers.

Those intermediaries have long been suspected of passing payments to deejays in exchange for airplay of specific songs. Such payments would violate a federal statute known as the payola law, which prohibits broadcasters from taking cash or anything of value in exchange for playing specific songs, unless they disclose the transaction to listeners.

In May, Sony BMG divulged that at least a dozen executives, including Sony Music U.S. President and Chief Executive Donnie Ienner, had received subpoenas.

Since Spitzer's investigation began, the three other record companies have circulated internal memos outlining unacceptable promotion practices company insiders said.

Radio airplay is considered the most powerful promotional tool for record companies. In the past, labels blatantly traded cash, drugs and prostitutes for airplay.

Today, record companies pay independent promoters to persuade radio programmers to spin particular songs.

The independent promoters pay radio stations annual fees, sometimes in excess of $100,000, in exchange for advance copies of the stations' playlists. Promoters say these fees do not influence a radio station's choice of songs. However, critics suggest that the payments are a way to skirt the law.

Last November, Infinity Broadcasting Corp., the nation's second-largest radio broadcaster, fired a programmer suspected of accepting gift certificates from an independent promoter. In January, Entercom Communications Corp., another radio broadcaster, fired a top programming executive amid an internal investigation into whether he accepted travel packages and other gifts directly from record label executives.

Since then, Infinity announced that it would sever the company's ties with independent promoters. Radio heavyweight Clear Channel Communications Inc. announced in 2003 that it would not renew contracts with independent promoters
 
sounds like good news. somehow I don't think it will get any easier for indies tho.... a $10m fine is like loose change.
 
man for the life of me i can never figure out this mess . . . i dont like/agree with payola schemes, but at the same time . . . i could not even get an idea of what to offer a bum radio dj to get em to play my song!!!! yea i know its wrong, but at this stage, u try to do whatever u can to get that exposure . . especially when u dealin with a genre of music that is so heavily influenced by the radio station . . . at least round my way . . . if u not on the radio, most people think u r a joke!!!
 
Personally, I don't see much wrong with payoffs. We take clients to lunch all the time. Take them to golf outings, give donations to scholarship funds for their employees and so on. Hell, one of my brother-in-law's vendors, takes him marlin fishing in mexico every year. It's the way we do things in this world. You scratch my back and I will scratch yours.

The only problem that I see is that it's programming public airways. I am not really sure that it's that bad. With radio especially, I change the channel if I don't like the tune. So I guess that might be a debatable issue.

As far as the indie's having a fair playing field, I think they do. What they don't have is money. Money for marketting, distribution and stocking the titles. Anyone with a DAW and a PC can make a very professional recording, but that is only the first, very small step. Making 1/2 million copies to stock every store, contacting stores, advertising the CD and so on, are what they miss. This is what big record companies can do. The radio stations are going to play what sells. The whole thing boils down to money. Indie's can't compete with the big studios because they don't have the money to, they will never be on the same playing field.

We got a promoter and got played 50 times on 20 stations over 6 weeks. That's a far cry from the 4500 times Brittany got palyed last week or the 3500 times Coldplay got played. Now we got contacted by Epic and Capitol for our airplay, and they sold another 100,000 CDs for theirs.

Remember, a lot of these rules were made when people only had 1 or 2 stations that they could pick up. So paying off for programming was a major issue. With all the stations today, I don't think it's as much an issue. Laws need to change with the times, maybe this is one of them, or maybe not. I guess that will be answered by the polititians who are getting paid off !!
 
I agree that Payola for airplay is no different to say winning a business contract not because you have the best product available, but because you took the guy for a weekend expenses paid golf trip or whatever. It happens all the time, true.

Some of us ask if it's RIGHT that it happens all the time? I guess that's the difference. If you're comfortable with the view that palms have to be greased and backs mutualy scratched in order to get on, then Payola seems 'reasonable'. How does it fit with the American dream that the little guy with talent and ability can get on - when it appears he can't unless he can provide the pay offs?

What bothers me as a musician is that the music that makes its way into the mainstream media is not necessarily there because it's been judged to be 'good' by whatever criteria, but might only be there simply because it's backed by big money and paid-to-play.

That's not to say that the music played by mainstream media isn't good, but you 're not really sure if it's there on merit or because of a pay off.

Imagine if you went to an art gallery and the pictures you got to see were there not because of critical acclaim or interest, but because a promoter had handed someone a pay off? Now come to think of it....
 
it's not illegal if the station tells listeners that it was paid for.

see today's nytimes for Semisonic comments.

the payola, btw, is recouped from only the artist account, have a nice day. :)
 
Back
Top