Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines payola as "undercover or indirect payment (as to a disc jockey) for a commercial favor (as for promoting a particular record)." In its simplest definition payola is "pay for play," but it is only a simple definition to a complex word.
Because payola is a word invented by the industry, it doesn't necessarily fall under the traditional Webster definitions. The term "payola" was created using the word's "pay" and "Victrola" (an early record player). The true definition of this word comes from the Federal Communications Commission. So I took to reading the Communications Act of 1934, where rules somewhat governing payola were first introduced.
Section 317 roughly states that all material broadcast by any radio station for which the station received a direct or indirect payment, must be noted at the time of broadcast. It's basically treated along the same lines as a sponsored event.
I've received a few e-mails about payola regarding my last column. I wanted to make sure everyone understood that what happened with me is not payola. I also wanted to make sure everyone understands what payola really is.
I can legally ask you to play my record in exchange for money or gifts. It is not payola unless you do not tell the audience I paid you to play my record. Interscope Records was accused of payola when they paid KUFO upwards of $5,000 to spin "Counterfeit" by Limp Bizkit 50 times. It didn't break payola laws because KUFO added a disclaimer before each play of the song. "The song you are about to hear is sponsored by Flip/Interscope."
Payola has been going on - in one form or another - for quite a long time. It wasn't considered illegal until the landmark Alan Freed case on May 9, 1960. Freed, a DJ with ABC, was indicted for accepting $2,500 in gifts. He claimed the gifts did not influence airplay. A similar case concerning Dick Clark soon followed.
The rules were drawn up, people were fined, the dust settled and people forgot about payola. It was mostly due to the industry figuring out a way around payola. How else are they going to make sure you get as much Britney Spears as possible?
Here's how it now works. A record label or promotions company will take a financial interest in a radio station. This financial interest usually deals with a station's promotions budget. The budget increases and decreases each year depending on certain factors. These partnerships, no matter how much they may look like payola, are not, based on current payola laws. But why haven't the laws been changed?
In 1998, Congress made a deal with television networks to pay roughly $200 million a year for five years in exchange for anti-drug advertising during prime time. Congress originally wanted advertising at a two-for-the-price-of-one rate. What they eventually agreed upon was incorporating anti-drug messages and stories into primetime programs instead of getting extra advertisements. Is this pay for play?
Just because the government does it, it doesn't make it right for the rest of us to do it. This brings me to what actually happened a while back. The $1,000 I was told I would receive if the album does what the artist wants would be considered a bribe, which is also illegal.
So what did I do about the $1,000? Whenever my vision of what would ethically be the right thing do is clouded, I ask myself, "What Would Jim Do?" (In reference to Jim Needham, telecommunications professor.) I ended up calling the guy back and telling him that even if his album does what he wants, I cannot accept the money because it is a bribe. Had this been worked out when we arranged the promotion as a goal or bonus upon completion of a job well done, this would be a different situation.
Write to Justin at rantinrex@hotmail.com