FEINGOLD QUESTIONS BIG RADIO’S COMMITMENT TO
ENDING PAYOLA PRACTICES
Reports Suggest Clear Channel May Already be Violating Agreement
to Provide No-Strings Access to Music Programmers for Local, Unsigned
and Independent Musicians
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
is questioning four major radio companies on their commitment to ending
payola or “pay-for-play” practices. In a letter
to CBS Radio, Entercom Communications, Clear Channel Communications,
and Citadel Broadcasting, Feingold wrote that he was troubled by possible
violations of the voluntary “rules of engagement” the
groups agreed to in April following their $12.5 million settlement
with the federal government over payola practices. Following
the settlement, the companies made a side agreement including “rules
of engagement,” which laid out how they intended to ensure fair
interactions with labels, artists and their representatives.
However, recent reports indicate that some stations owned by one of
the companies, Clear Channel, are requiring local, unsigned and independent
musicians to grant a royalty-free right and license to the music upon
submission to the radio programmers, which would appear to violate
the voluntary agreement they entered into following the settlement.
“The settlement between the federal government and major radio
broadcast companies in March was an encouraging step toward greater
access and increased air time for independent and local artists,”
Feingold said. “But now it seems that simply relying on
good faith to end the pervasive practice of payola may not be enough.
The major radio companies should reaffirm their commitment to making
air play decisions based on artistic merit instead of on the musicians’
or labels’ willingness to provide thinly veiled bribes through
payola.”
“Radio consolidation and payola have long kept deserving local
and independent artists off the nation’s airwaves. Earlier this
year, Clear Channel agreed to address the problem of payola, but its
latest actions show it wasn’t sincere,” said Michael Bracy,
policy director of the Future of Music Coalition. “Clear Channel
has substituted one brand of payola for another type of pay-to-play.
This is just payola under a different name.”
###
July 11, 2007
Dan Mason
President and Chief Executive Officer
CBS RADIO, Inc.
1515 Broadway
New York, NY 10036
Farid Suleman
Chairman of the Board and CEO
Citadel Broadcasting Corporation
7201 W. Lake Mead Blvd., Suite 400
Las Vegas, NV 89128
L. Lowry Mays
Chairman of the Board
Clear Channel Communications, Inc.
200 East Basse Road
San Antonio, TX 78209
David J. Field
President and Chief Executive Officer
Entercom Communications Corp.
401 City Avenue, Suite 809
Bala Cynwyd, Pa 19004
Dear Mr. Mason, Mr. Suleman, Mr. Mays, and Mr. Field:
As you probably are aware, I have been concerned about
payola and other anti-competitive practices in the radio industry
for some time. While I believe that FCC oversight and enforcement
could have been stronger, I was encouraged by your willingness to
work with the small and independent labels to come to a voluntary
side agreement that went along with the consent decree announced in
April. I continue to hope that this agreement will help the public
have greater access to local, unsigned and independent musicians,
whose voices have unfortunately been missing more often than not from
our public airwaves over the past decade or more.
I was pleased that the side agreement included eight
“Rules of Engagement,” which laid out how your companies
intended to ensure fair interactions with labels, artists and their
representatives. These rules echo requirements from my previous payola
legislation and address the core problem of payola by trying to remove
coercion, payments or other quid pro quo in exchange for airplay or
access to music programmers. While I continue to have some concern
that the enforcement of these rules is voluntary, if they were to
be followed industry-wide it would go a long way toward eliminating
pay-for-play.
I would like to ask for more information about a couple
of these rules that your radio station groups have committed to follow.
The first rule of engagement provides that “Radio should establish,
and appropriately publicize, clear and non-discriminatory procedures
for music submissions and access to radio station music programmers
(to the extent any such access is provided).” Now that you have
had a couple months to put this rule into place, I’d like to
request more information on what access you have provided and how
it has been publicized. Have you taken any efforts to increase the
amount of access provided and to facilitate submissions? I’d
also be interested in knowing whether this access is through each
individual station, to the corporate playlists and testing pools,
if applicable, or both.
Related to this first rule of engagement is the second
rule, which states “Radio should not be allowed to sell or barter
access to its music programmers.” I am concerned by recent reports
that some Clear Channel stations are requiring the grant of a royalty-free
right and license to the music upon submission. As the debate surrounding
the recent Copyright Royalty Board decision to increase the royalty
rate for digital performances indicates, these rights clearly have
value. Moreover, the submission form used by these stations apparently
indicates that the music and other material will be provided to the
music programmers for airplay consideration. The required royalty
waiver seems to violate the April commitment not to barter access
to music programmers. I encourage you all, and Clear Channel in particular,
to clarify this issue.
I have held off on reintroduction of my legislation
this Congress because I was hopeful that the voluntary rules of engagement
combined with the consent decree could be effective in eliminating
payola and related abuses. But it is very troubling that the voluntary
rules seem to have been violated after just a few months. When the
agreement was announced in April, I expressed concern that the consent
decrees and side agreement depended so heavily on continued good faith
instead of strong enforceable standards. The weakness of the voluntary
reforms is that there is no impartial arbiter like the FCC to determine
the meaning of the rules, so they can be parsed or ignored with only
public opinion as a partial check.
I hope that your commitment to meaningful rules of engagement
and efforts to eliminate the pervasive payola documented by then-New
York Attorney General Spitzer remains strong and look forward to your
response.
Sincerely,
Russell D. Feingold
United States Senator