A Bad Idea That Refuses to Die by George Ziemann -- September 9, 2008 I was at Wired, trying to find out when the supercollider gets turned on, potentially ripping the space-time continuum and triggering the end of the world, when I found the radio salesman pushing for internet payola, which is much more likely to be something to worry about. Elliot von Buskirk does a good job relaying what a bad idea this still is, so I'd suggest reading his article. And I have written a lot on this subject that I don't want to rehash. However, there is a point of view from "Ad man Doug Perlson" that deserves debunking. "Large internet and satellite radio stations currently pay per-song performance royalty fees, a significant drain on their margins," writes Perlson. "On the other hand, with both the rationale for the law and the way it is written, these networks should not be barred from accepting payment for song placement. The barrier is therefore not a legal one, but instead a cultural one, built up and taught in the industry over the last half-century. And this barrier helps no one: not the public, nor the stations, nor the music industry, and especially not the artists." This is extremely disingenuous. Of course, "ad man" was a warning that bullshit would follow. Payola is a barrier. It becomes an admission fee. If you can't afford it, you don't get played. This allows the major labels to buy success and stifle competition. And they'll be buying it with the artists' money, which is the entire problem. Payola will cost more than the royalties pay. The point of the royalties is to pay the artists. The point of payola is to make them give the money back. Just say no.

Related Content Payola Ad Exec: Payola Can Save Webcasters, Music Business