Talk:Payola/Archives/2013

Huh?
This article states:
 * Because of this, a very large majority of DJs are cut out of the song-picking decisions and are instead told what to play and when (for the most part) by music directors and/or "higher ups" at their radio stations.

I don't know where this writer has been for the past three decades. Bill Drake was telling the jocks what to play and when in the late '60s! Back then, the talent was given a paper log or card file of titles to play; today it is all done by computer based on the latest focus-group research. Only in college radio and a very few surviving (mostly non-commercial) "freeform" stations do the jocks have any say in the music. (Of course, the MD often pulls down a jock shift as well.) 121a0012 02:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That statement doesn't imply that there is anything new about the situation, so I don't see any problem with it as is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.151.205.13 (talk • contribs).
 * The statement implies that "promotion payments" (the referent of "this", in the previous paragraph) are the proximate cause of jocks not picking the songs, which is flat-out false. If I had a good verifiable source (rather than simply knowing how the business works) I'd replace that statement with an explanation of why this is a common misconception.  (The RCS Web site used to have an explanation, but I can't find it any more.)  121a0012 01:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If its declared, its not payola, its advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.98.40.80 (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

So taking the task of picking music away from (so called) "disk jockeys" and giving it to someone else guards against corrupt DJ's taking payola money. So whats to stop the payola money going to someone else ? 80.229.222.48 09:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The entire article gives the impression that Payola is illegal from the start. It's not. The illegality of it comes into play when those payments (whether they be in the form of money, services, or gifts) go undeclared as income by those who accept it in exchange for playing a record, whereas the taxes on those payments go unpaid. That's what got dj's like Alan Freed into trouble. Again, Payola in itself is not illegal. It is the abuse of it that is illegal. FredClem (talk) 08:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * In my experience, payola is typically only used to refer to the illegal version of this procedure. The legal version is called 'promotional consideration' or something similar.Eaglizard (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Merger would be wrong
Pay to play is a distinct term from payola. Payola means paying for radio play, pay to play refers to paying for playing a live show.

Payola is also known as 'pay for play', but 'pay to play' is having to pay for playing a live gig. Agreed that merger would be a bad idea


 * Payola is also a sometimes illegal act covered by Federal law; pay-to-play has always been perfectly legal.Eaglizard (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Payola is illegal
Can anyone find a reference where payola does NOT refer to the practice of not disclosing payments to the public? When the payments are properly disclosed per law, then it is paid advertisement, and not payola. The term payola pretty much exclusively refers to the now-illegal practice, IMO.Eaglizard (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Double Dead Kennedy Reference
This should be cleaned up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.127.218.173 (talk) 01:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)