but i'd still argue that you're in a minority when it comes to "knowing" about payola existing as much as it does.

sure, some of us throw a winking eye at each other when we see diet coke make an appearance on the WB, but in a day where artists become a brand, the commercial isn't always as simple as a product placement. people, for some ungodly reason, continue buying mariah carey not because they necessarily love her but because they're made to consume her brand in ads, spots and, unvariably, with some radio. they're not listeners, they're consumers and consumers should know when they're being ad-ed to.

the same goes for print advertisements: advertisers can't make ads that look too similar to the actual editorial content and if they do new-ish looking items, they have to mark it "advertisments." certainly, this is a fine line to walk: most people don't know what a machine fader magazine is until you draw the lines to cornerstone publicity, just as most people don't know certain rappers drop the name of certain sport utility vehicles because they're being paid to do so.

when reba's newest single started showing up on charts last year, it drew the attention from other programmers, media, the public etc. the average everyday listener didn't know that reba showed up on the chart because 50 program directors across the country decided to spin her 40 times overnight. the single sucked and had no staying power, but she at least sold a ton of records. its a machine and audiences are on the losing end while programmers and promoters are entirely on the winning. until somebody calls them on their game.

it's not gonna stop, but at least be honest with the losing-est people out there. those radio stations that took part in payola may possibly be in danger of losing their licenses from the FCC, and for good reason: the airwaves are partly a public commodity and its not being treated as such.

I wish radio stations would start their broadcast day with a public announcement: "The following is a paid advertisement for the products of WEA, BMG, Sony, DGC, etc. We have been offered compensation to present these products in the context of our programming, we have chosen to accept the most amount of money for songs we believe you want to hear."

I support disclosure, but I don't fault Sony for spending money to push their product, nor do I fault a commercial enterprise for taking that money--willing buyer, willing seller. Listeners are free to tune away.

meh, it's not so much a matter of fault -- they'll do whatever it takes, clearly. some are faced with the value of their product -- and how much $$ it takes to get a band to "make it" -- and are expected a return, so naturally they'll try something like payola. but, for crying out loud, don't expect sympathy if you're caught doing something illegal. willing buyer/seller, sure, but there's consequences for getting cuaght repeatedly doing something illegal. whether or not $10million is a drop in the hat for sony bmg is another issue altogether, but quit making ads sound like actual "editorial" (haha!) content. i think your public announcement idea sounds pretty good to be honest, except they have to be clear which songs are paid for and which one are not -- obviously, i don't think all of them are payola-driven, so at least that's a benefit to the consumer if they know it or not.

Right there! That's the part that doesn't jive. Because people ARE tuning away, and radio is buying print ads and making announcements about how great it is, how it's free, come back won't you please? (This is, of course, in no way your fault Bilz, you're a great guy, I'm pissed at radio). It's just retarded, the tongue-in-cheek games where we're not supposed to know, but some people know, and everyone behind the scenes knows, but it's illegal, and yet it continues unabated. Dumb. Maybe I just have too high of a standard for radio in my head, and it can't possibly live up to it.