Corporate Schoolyard

David Kravets at Wired wrote this interesting news piece regarding musicFIRST on behalf of the recording industry versus the National Association of Broadcasters.  (Read the article before the rest of this post if you have the chance.)

Now I find it hard to believe that an industry so reliant on publicists actually pulled this stunt.  Hasn't anyone advised them that if your industry on the whole has already pissed off the bulk of the U.S. by a) releasing overpriced albums with one good song; b) suing kids for downloading said crappy albums for free and c) not properly compensating artists with settlement money (that's just the short list), it probably isn't a good idea to go after the radio stations for "a form of piracy"?  

This isn't to say that I'm on the side of the NAB.  Certainly, that organization has it's own agenda.  And, after spending three years studying the history of radio for my M.A., I have come to learn that the NAB is responsible for a myriad shady dealings as well.  Basically, what we have here are two umbrellas for various corporate entities fighting like schoolchildren until big daddy government steps in to try and make things all better.

On the one hand, you have the record industry, which is clearly suffering from a soon-to-be-fatal case hubris, the latest symptom of which is denying the promotional aspect of radio.  As you are probably aware, the people who supply music to the radio stations are called "promoters."  That's their job title and their job description includes sending albums to the music director and program director and checking in with the two to see if their stuff will be played.  These are also the people who arrange for live performances at the station, interview sessions, radio contests, etc.  All of this is done to ensure that Band X's album is played as frequently as possible on the grounds that the more popular it is on the air, the more popular it will be in the store.

While the relevance of terrestrial radio has waned over the past decade, there is no doubt that is has traditionally been crucial to breaking a band.  Those of us who grew up in L.A. can tell anyone willing to listen that the reason why Depeche Mode was able to sell out the Rose Bowl back in the '80s and the reason why it still has an incredible following here is because of the heavy airplay the band received on KROQ for years.  More recently, and on a smaller scale, Silversun Pickups' popularity outside of Silver Lake could also be attributed to frequent spins on Indie 103.1.

On the other hand, though, you have the radio industry, which has done increasingly little to help promote music in recent years.  Sure, you have a handful of stations, mostly of the non-commercial variety, whose reputation relies on breaking artists.  Those stations, however, are in the minority.  If the radio industry did really see itself as a source of record promotion, it probably wouldn't rely so heavily on computer-generated playlists consisting of songs that have been market-tested for a narrow demographic.  In other words, if promotion were key to the game, you wouldn't have to hear all of greatest hits from your cousins' weddings humming in the background at work.  Add to this the fact that other media must pay royalties to the artist and label, while the NAB doesn't, and one might be inclined to-- gasp-- side with the record industry for a split second.

So who is right and who is wrong in this situation?  I don't have an answer for that and, perhaps, an answer isn't necessary.  After all, both record labels and terrestrial radio stations are losing in the new media game. Maybe the two entities should stop fighting with each other (and dragging our policy makers, who should have better things to do than referee this round of bickering, into it) and start working on creative solutions that will benefit both business and art.  That might be a bit too mature for corporate America, though.