What is payola: a bribe given to a disc jockey to induce him to promote a particular record
AND/OR
Crime of giving a benefit (e.g., money) in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust (e.g., an official or witness). Accepting a bribe also constitutes a crime. Bribery is typically punishable as a felony. In any charge of bribery, some element of “corrupt purpose” must be implied or proved. Thus, in the absence of a complete statutory prohibition on the granting of favours to a public official, a gift is not a bribe unless it is given with some intent to influence the recipient's official behaviour.
The majority of us in the music business would better go with the first definition for our profession and/or passion but do not get it wrong the second also comes into play "CRIME" but as we continue just like contracts are made in good faith to be honored they can be broken if such elements are not carried out.
I bring this subject up as I hear it and see it on most days. It is a disease in the business.
Last evening at the forum held by the Coalition to Preserve Reggae "CPR" the question was: Do radio deejays contribute to the state of popular Jamaican music? This was a great topic, great panel and great audience and great moderator. One could not have asked for better people.
I was thrilled to bits when an audience member asked about "Payola" my ears and eyes opened up while I was standing in line awaiting my turn, as my question was on the same.
When my turn came I spoke a bit of my experience on radio and finding commercials to pay for my time etc. But I was more concerned about "Payola" so I asked if the Panelist who receive Pay for Play raise their hands. Audience members and fans of certain radio deejays thought I was wrong and said I couldn't and shouldn't ask such a question. I heard the nooooooo you can't ask that question. I said to myself I can't ask that question but I did. Yes, I did because I have the balls/ballocks to ask it. I am at a forum and it is open to ask questions. Others were like wow, I want to see this and the outcome.
I turned my focus back to the panel and asked again. I couldn't help but see some panelist easing down in their seats, fidgeting, uncomfortable about speaking of this method of madness. One did explain himself well on the topic and was well versed with it to which I was not at all surprise and one or two got very defensive - EXPECTED. (My observation - mi yah I dem don't lie) OF COURSE NON OF DEM RAISE DEM HAND.
Now, I know better. Remember I am in the business. I know people and people talk. I have seen STUFF yes STUFF and aware of STUFF. My question was not intended to hurt or make ANYONE to become defensive or put on a spot. Now, I have a legal background and we are taught to read body language and nuff of the body language spoke for themselves.
I asked if any of them are familiar with Section 317 of the Communications Act of 1934 and Section 507 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 508. I got a look like what the "F" is she talking about. I was shocked but still not shocked. Shocked in that you are in a business, it is your career and you are not reading nor do you know things of your career that you are expected to know. First off at least know the digits let it stay in your head and have a slight idea of what it entails. The "not shocked" because I know some of them just in it for the money and not the love of it. I know the latter cannot pay the bills but at least be in the know.
My question was really to inform them because I knew that the majority of them did not know. I felt that only one or two might have known. But last nights answers spoke for itself. I wanted them to be on their guard. If they were accepting pay for play IT IS ACCEPTABLE majority of them did not know. Some of them might have heard that it is a form of advertisement. Yes, but again just like being on radio is a PRIVILEGE under certain conditions, PAYOLA same, it comes with certain conditions.
SEE FOR YOURSELVES (Section 317 of the Communications Act of 1934 and Section 507 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 508)
PAYOLA AND SPONSORSHIP IDENTIFICATION
Section 317 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 317, requires broadcasters to disclose to their listeners or viewersif matter has been aired in exchange for money, services or other valuable consideration. The announcement must be airedwhen the subject matter is broadcast. The Commission has adopted a rule, 47 C.F.R. § 73.1212, which sets forth the broadcasters' responsibilities to makethis sponsorship identification
Section 507 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 508, requires that, when anyone providesor promises to provide money, servicesor other consideration to someone to include program matter in a broadcast, thatfact must be disclosed in advance of the broadcast, ultimately to the station over which the matter is to be aired. Both the person providing or promising to provide the money, services or other considerationand the recipient are obligated to make this disclosure so that the station may broadcast the sponsorship identification announcement required by Section 317 of the Communications Act. Failure to disclose such payment orthe providing of services or other consideration, or promise to provide them, is commonly referred to as ``payola'' and is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year or both. These criminal penalties bring violations within the purview of the Department of Justice. Thus, for example, if a record company or its agent pays a broadcaster to play records on the air, those payments do not violate these provisions of the law if the required sponsorship identification information is timely aired by the broadcast station. If it is not aired as required by the Communications Act and the Commission's rules, thestation and others are subject to enforcement action. If record companies, or their agents, are paying persons other than the broadcast licensee (such as the station's Music Director or its on-air personality) to have records aired, and fail to disclose that fact to the licensee, the person making such payments, and the recipient, are also subject to criminal fine, imprisonment or both, for violation of the disclosure requirements contained in Section 507.
NOW....all I was trying to get through to them is to abide by the law. Inform their listeners that this music was not in demand, not requested. Disclose to their audience/listeners that the music just aired or what you are about to air is sponsorship/advertisement. Have a segment for that type of music. We are tired or being conditioned by the music you are given to play in receipt of monies. Stop forcing us to like a certain artist or music. Is or was that too much to ask of a radio jock? What are their fears that the artist(s) or their team will be found out. If so let them be more creative and come with something that we want to hear and request.
