Consumer Declared Innocent; Radio Killed the CD Single

By George Ziemann (Feb. 16, 2003)

In February 2001, the RIAA's 2000 Yearend Market Report on U.S. Recorded Music Shipments noted that shipments of CD singles had plummeted by 38.8% in 2000, adding that "This one-year decrease in CD singles shipments is preceded by a 200% growth between 1995 and 1997 and flat growth in '98 and '99."

The explanation? "The singles market plummeted because of changes in consumer purchasing habits principally brought on by new options provided by the Internet."

Good guess. But that's exactly what it was, a guess. Either that or a calculated stance, as there is really no factual data to support this claim. You've got to give them a little credit for taking the "It's my story and I'm sticking to it" approach, but it's time to look at something a bit more realistic that actually relates to CD singles.

I promise that this is the last time I'll drag this chart out.

"This one-year decrease in CD singles shipments is preceded by a 200% growth between 1995 and 1997 and flat growth in '98 and '99."

Correct me if I am wrong, but I see a more than 300% increase between 1995 and 1997 (I was wrong. It's 300% of the original amount, but only a 200% increase). I would also have a hard time calling an 18% decrease "flat growth" (1997 to 1999), unless I was trying to downplay it so I could blame the later decline on something else.

Even ignoring the fact that the industry's response to falling sales was to raise prices, there is a much more logical reason for the "plummet" in the singles market that chronologically falls cleanly in line with the sales of singles. It was provided on January 30, 2003 by Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold, who said the following during a hearing on radio consolidation.

"When the 1996 Telecommunications Act became law there were approximately 5,100 owners of radio stations. Today, Mr. Chairman, there are only about 3,800 owners, a reduction of 25%. Minority ownership has also decreased ­ the number of African American owners of radio stations has fallen by 14%. Prior to 1996, one company couldn't own more than 20 AM stations and 20 FM stations. Now two companies -- two companies, Mr. Chairman -- control 42 percent of the content that reaches listeners and 45 percent of industry revenues."

Don Henley thinks it's closer to 65%.

I'd be willing to wager that the consolidation was slow the first year or so, more of a realignment than anything else. It hadn't had a chance to effect the singles market yet but would as the consolidation hit its first plateau and then picked up steam and began to grow exponentially. I'd also bet that, if those figures were available and I had a clue where to look for them, we would find an inverse -- but direct -- relationship between the decline of the market for singles and the growth of Clear Channel.

According to Sen. John McCain, Clear Channel now owns more than 1,200 stations. CC owner Art Moss, at the same hearing, made the statement that last year (2002), CC introduced more than 3000 new songs from 550 artists.

He said it like he was proud of it. Apparently, he thought this was significant. Far from it.

Consider this. Clear Channel owns at least 1200 stations. How many songs do you think they play a year? I spent a little time as a disc jockey. If you're lucky, after commercials you can get 10 or 12 songs on in an hour. So let's say 10. If the average station is only on the air 12 hours a day (some AM stations are limited to "sunrise to sunset" operations), that's 120 songs a day. In a year, our hypothetical station would have time to play about 43,800 songs. 24-hour stations would, of course, play twice as many songs, but we'll give Clear Channel a break and not even consider that.

1,200 stations x 43,800 songs = 52,560,000 songs in a year

According to SoundScan data, 33,443 new releases were issued in 2002. Only 3,000 new songs got played in any of the more than 52.5 million available slots last year on Clear Channel. Less than 3 new songs for the year per station. Less than 10 percent of last year's releases got airplay. If more than one song got played off of any one release, the percentage drops even more.

As Mel Tillis would say, this is "plumb pitiful," but it does give credence to the RIAA statement that less than 10 percent of their releases are profitable.

It doesn't have anything to do with downloading. The other 90 percent never get any airplay. In fact, the RIAA should be ecstatic that people are downloading music. If we don't, how are we supposed to find the other 90% of the music they release? If we haven't heard it, why would we buy it?

We're certainly not hearing it on the radio. They're too busy playing the same thing over and over and over and over. An exaggeration? Check out this bit of information from the Kansas City Star:

In 2002, radio was not very interested in bands like the White Stripes or stories like the "invasion" of Swedish bands like the Hives.

Radio, instead, was interested in the same-old/same-old: modern rock and the new breed of teen-pop stars. Wondering how Avril Lavinge sold more than 4 million copies of "Let Go"? It's all about radio oversaturation breeding addiction and -- cha-ching! -- demand at retail record stores.

Last year U.S. radio stations played Lavigne's song "Complicated" more than 364,000 times -- about 1,000 times a day, according to Nielsen Broadcast Data System, which monitors airplay at 1,100 radio stations in 128 U.S. markets.

"Complicated" wasn't even the most-played song on commercial radio last year. That title goes to Nickelback's "How You Remind Me." U.S. radio audiences were reminded of that song a staggering 421,770 times last year. That translates into more than nine times a day in each market.

And don't think that Avril Lavigne got played 364,000 times because someone at Clear Channel really liked "Complicated" a lot. According to Don Henley, she probably paid dearly for it.

Payola is back. The recording industry not only condones this illegal activity, but openly charges the artists for it. Video didn't really kill the radio star. As it turns out, it would have been a mercy killing. Radio consolidation certainly bears the guilt for the murder of the CD single.

Not the Internet. And certainly not the consumer, who is just trying to find new music. I guess the one thing I really don't understand about all of this is why the RIAA would want to stop people from finding new music. Or punish them for finding it? How stupid is that? As a musician, I want people to hear my songs. Please download them. Listen to them as many times as you want.

THAT'S WHY WE RECORDED A CD!!! It would be nice to sell a few copies and make some money from it, but that's not really why musicians make recordings. Most of us play, perform and record because we are compelled to. We think we have something to offer and want people to listen to it. Without the public's ears, we are nothing.

If I can't get Clear Channel to play one of my songs on the radio without paying them off, then I can only hope that someone puts "Criminal Mind" on Kazaa and people start listening to it. If not Kazaa, then whatever comes after. Or the thing after that.

The total irony in all of this is that while the RIAA is willing to take individual consumers to court for uploading or downloading a music file without paying some sort of royalty, Nickleback didn't get a dime from Clear Channel for the thousands and thousands of times they played "How You Remind Me." They had to pay for that privilege.

The broadcasting industry in the United States doesn't pay performance royalties. Why isn't the RIAA trying to repeal that decision instead of dragging consumers into court for logging onto a P2P network?

It would certainly seem more profitable. Let's see, 52 million times 8 cents...