Pay-to-Playlist: The Commerce of Music Streaming

Christopher Buccafusco, Kristelia A. García
{"title":"Pay-to-Playlist: The Commerce of Music Streaming","authors":"Christopher Buccafusco, Kristelia A. García","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3793043","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Payola—sometimes referred to as “pay-for-play”—is the undisclosed payment, or acceptance of payment, in cash or in kind, for promotion of a song, album, or artist. Some form of pay-for-play has existed in the music industry since the 19th century. Most prominently, the term has been used to refer to the practice of record labels paying radio DJs to play certain songs in order to boost their popularity and sales. Since the middle of the 20th century, the FCC has regulated this behavior—ostensibly because of its propensity to harm consumers and competition—by requiring that broadcasters disclose such payments. \n \nAs streaming music platforms continue to siphon off listeners from analog radio, a new form of payola has emerged. In this new streaming payola, record labels, artists, and managers simply shift their payments from radio to streaming music platforms like Spotify, YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram. Instead of going to DJs, payments go to playlisters or to influencers who can help promote a song by directing audiences toward it. Because online platforms do not fall under the FCC’s jurisdiction, streaming pay-for-play is not currently regulated at the federal level, although some of it may be subject to state advertising disclosure laws. \n \nIn this Article, we describe the history and regulation of traditional forms of pay-for-play, and explain how streaming practices differ. Our account is based, in substantive part, on a novel series of qualitative interviews with music industry professionals. Our analysis finds the normative case for regulating streaming payola lacking: contrary to conventional wisdom, we show that streaming pay-for-play, whether disclosed or not, likely causes little to no harm to consumers, and it may even help independent artists gain access to a broader audience. Given this state of affairs, regulators should proceed with caution to preserve the potential advantages afforded by streaming payola and to avoid further exacerbating extant inequalities in the music industry.","PeriodicalId":117169,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Advertising (Sub-Topic)","volume":"355 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Advertising (Sub-Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3793043","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Payola—sometimes referred to as “pay-for-play”—is the undisclosed payment, or acceptance of payment, in cash or in kind, for promotion of a song, album, or artist. Some form of pay-for-play has existed in the music industry since the 19th century. Most prominently, the term has been used to refer to the practice of record labels paying radio DJs to play certain songs in order to boost their popularity and sales. Since the middle of the 20th century, the FCC has regulated this behavior—ostensibly because of its propensity to harm consumers and competition—by requiring that broadcasters disclose such payments. As streaming music platforms continue to siphon off listeners from analog radio, a new form of payola has emerged. In this new streaming payola, record labels, artists, and managers simply shift their payments from radio to streaming music platforms like Spotify, YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram. Instead of going to DJs, payments go to playlisters or to influencers who can help promote a song by directing audiences toward it. Because online platforms do not fall under the FCC’s jurisdiction, streaming pay-for-play is not currently regulated at the federal level, although some of it may be subject to state advertising disclosure laws. In this Article, we describe the history and regulation of traditional forms of pay-for-play, and explain how streaming practices differ. Our account is based, in substantive part, on a novel series of qualitative interviews with music industry professionals. Our analysis finds the normative case for regulating streaming payola lacking: contrary to conventional wisdom, we show that streaming pay-for-play, whether disclosed or not, likely causes little to no harm to consumers, and it may even help independent artists gain access to a broader audience. Given this state of affairs, regulators should proceed with caution to preserve the potential advantages afforded by streaming payola and to avoid further exacerbating extant inequalities in the music industry.
付费播放列表:音乐流媒体的商业模式
payola——有时被称为“pay-for-play”——是未公开的付款,或接受付款,以现金或实物的形式,用于推广歌曲、专辑或艺术家。自19世纪以来,音乐行业就存在某种形式的付费播放。最明显的是,这个词被用来指唱片公司付钱给电台dj播放某些歌曲,以提高它们的知名度和销量。自20世纪中叶以来,联邦通信委员会通过要求广播公司披露此类支付,对这种行为进行了监管——表面上是因为它有损害消费者和竞争的倾向。随着流媒体音乐平台继续从模拟广播中吸走听众,一种新的付费形式出现了。在这种新的流媒体支付中,唱片公司、艺术家和经纪人只是将他们的付款从电台转移到Spotify、YouTube、TikTok和Instagram等流媒体音乐平台上。这些钱不是付给dj,而是付给播放列表或有影响力的人,他们可以通过引导观众来帮助推广一首歌。由于在线平台不属于联邦通信委员会的管辖范围,流媒体付费播放目前不受联邦一级的监管,尽管其中一些可能受州广告披露法的约束。在本文中,我们描述了传统形式的付费游戏的历史和监管,并解释了流媒体实践的不同之处。我们的报道在很大程度上是基于对音乐行业专业人士进行的一系列新颖的定性访谈。我们的分析发现,监管流媒体付费的规范案例缺乏:与传统观点相反,我们表明,流媒体付费播放,无论披露与否,可能对消费者几乎没有造成伤害,甚至可能帮助独立艺术家获得更广泛的受众。鉴于这种情况,监管机构应该谨慎行事,以保持流媒体付费带来的潜在优势,并避免进一步加剧音乐行业现有的不平等。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信