5.14.2009

Should Black Radio Die?



Radio One’s “Save Black Radio” Campaign Misses the Mark
by Mark Anthony Neal

On May 13th, more than 200 protesters gathered outside the Detroit offices of House Judiciary Chairman and longtime Michigan representative John Conyers (and Congressional Black Caucus member), the sponsor of the controversial Performance Rights Act (HR 848). Referred to as the “performance tax,” the bill, if passed, would require that radio stations pay yearly license fees for the right to play music on the air. The protest was sponsored by Radio One, the largest black owned radio company in the country, with over 50 stations in nearly 20 markets and an increasing share of the so-called urban market via the TV-One television network, Giant Magazine and the signature syndicated drive-time program, Tom Joyner Morning Show. Radio One’s “Save Black Radio” campaign responds to fears that the Performance Rights Act will adversely affect already struggling black owned radio stations, but obscures Black Radio’s own failure to live up to its responsibility to the very communities that it is calling on for support.


To be clear the debates about the Performance Rights Act are part of an on-going struggle that pits record companies—specifically the four major global conglomerates, Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony and Universal Music Group—against large radio broadcasters such as Clear Channel, CBS Radio and the aforementioned Radio-One. The bill, which has been pushed by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), seeks to reverse (rather tepidly) the long known, though denied practice of “pay for play,” where record companies paid “independent” promoters. Those promoters then offered financial and other incentives to radio stations to support the products of the record labels the promoters were in cahoots with. The practice, which was brilliantly captured in a series of Salon.com essays by Eric Boehlert, came to public light three years ago when then New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer forced Universal Music Group into a $12-million settlement in response to claims that the company had engaged in “pay for play” tactics. In this light, the Performance Rights Act is simply payback (reparations, perhaps), with a stream of money going from the radio Stations back to the record companies.


Supporters and detractors of the bill, have been quick to point how its passing or failing will impact artists. Record companies are simply disingenuous when they suggest that artists will benefit from the passing of HR 848, when their own business practices guarantee the average artist less than 10-percent of profits generated from the sale of their recordings and the companies will themselves take part of the proceeds generated from the collection of a “performance tax.” If the RIAA and Record companies were really so concerned with the plight of artist, they would create less exploitive relationships with artists.


The folk at Radio One are quick to put out charts and numbers that suggest how important Black Radio and local airplay are to black artists citing the examples of top-tier acts such as Kanye West and Curtis Jackson. Such examples are meaningless for anyone who has listened to so-called Urban Radio or Radio One over the last decade and been taken aback by the distinct lack of diversity featured on major black radio stations. The dearth of the kinds of local and independent artists that Black Radio had historically been supportive of is striking on contemporary Black Radio, where even those stations that specialize in classic R&B and Soul do so in a way that essentially supports the back catalogues of the major conglomerates. In fact, as industry analyst Cedric Muhammad noted a few years ago, Radio One was notorious for admonishing on-air talent who played music that was not sanctioned by the company, making it difficult for independent artists to get airplay. Understandably, Radio One’s own corporate ambitions were tied to their willingness to play the game on the recording industry’s term and accordingly now that the environment has changed, they are trying to reverse course.


For many, the idea of Black Radio has long been dead as companies like Clear Channel and Emmis (parent company of New York’s famed Hot 97) have effectively mined the field for “authentic” black on-air talent, to give the impression of being “black owned,” while having little to do with the black communities they ostensibly exist to serve. In a highly competitive marketplace, black owned radio stations have had little choice but to try to replicate the successes of the Clear Channels of the nation and in that regard, Radio One has often out “clear channeled” Clear Channel. Even those Radio One partners such as The Tom Joyner Morning Show and The Michael Baisden Show, who were admirable in their roles during the 2008 election season, are problematic in the ways that they privilege national issues over the kinds of vital local concerns that radio stations have historically been critical to. In his important book Fighting for Air: The Battle to Control America’s Media, Eric Klineberg provides examples of radio conglomerates that didn’t have personnel on the ground at local stations and thus were unable to warn their local listening audiences of impending dangers.


In that smaller radio stations were often the only places where real independent artists could get any airplay (as opposed to those artists who are simply marketed as “independent”), HR 848 will be detrimental to independent artist.
As Tony Muhammad recently wrote, “with the economy the way that it is, new up-coming artists and all current lime light artists that bind themselves like slaves to corporations (including the major record labels themselves) will fall just as the economy that they are so dependent on will continue to fall.”

To be sure, the economic impact that the Performance Rights Act will have on Black and Community-based radio stations are real, particularly those without the corporate profile of a Radio-One. As William Barlow and Brian Ward attest to in their respective books, Voice Over: The Making of Black Radio and Radio and the Struggles for Civil Rights in the South, Black Radio has been indispensible to the social and political gains of Black Americans. But the advantages that Black Americans gained from their use of the airwaves, was a product of a particular historical moment. New technologies emerge, as do new opportunities, particularly under difficult economic conditions.
As such, this is a moment that demands new models (indeed the use of podcasts and on-line programming like that of Bob Davis’s Soul-Patrol Radio points the way) and perhaps “Black Radio” as we know it and as Radio One has represented it, needs to die, in order for Black Radio to survive.


***


Mark Anthony Neal is Professor of Black Popular Culture in the Department of African and African-American Studies at Duke University. He is the author of several books including What the Music Said: Black Popular Music and Black Public Culture and the forthcoming Looking for Leroy: (Il)Legible Black Masculinities.

6 comments:

AJ Johnson said...

Black radio was a lovely subversive moment of the late 60s through the early 80s when the limit on stations, increased black activism and nascent black political power, and a unified (relatively) black listener base came together. As Barlow points out in his book Voice Over white-owned but black-oriented radio never completely moved over and when Reagen and his followers lifted the group ownership numbers, local radio, the most valuable for grass-roots action, was doomed, as was the idea of radio programming that really "rocked the boat" in any meaningful way.

As for this current proposed legislation, musicians know that no record label is seriously standing up for artists rights; record companies need and despise artists at the same time. On the other hand, no media conglomerate, not even RadioOne with roots in that subversive period, can see past the the bottom lines of their own business needs.

I continue to have faith in the abilities of the black community to find its voice as we move through succeeding waves of technology-enabled communications.

Karl "Kdub" Williams said...

Mr. Neal thank you so much for making a very complex issue easy enough for the masses to understand.

One thing I know about the Black community is their collective resistance to change. The other is that they will change if for some reason the something disrupts their every day life routines.

One needs to look no further than the recent uproar behind The "Flyjock" being replaced in major markets by Steve Harvey.

I really didn't care about the move one way or the other. The issues have become so muddled that the average African American baby boomer no longer cares.

You are correct in citing the admirable contributions of folk like Bob Davis of Soul Patrol Radio and others who make the internet a place of refuge for those of us who love good music without all the political helter-skelter and BS. Independent artists flourish there and we get to hear all of our old school favorites.

Radio that we knew and loved died a long time ago and I for one would'nt miss it if it disappeared tomorrow. Although I dont think our President had this in mind for his program of change, but why not ?

I also know this Mr. Neal, keep writing and educating, some of us are reading and listening. My brother, please continue to make a joyful noise.

rebelcontent said...

Two comments and a rather rhetorical question:

- Radio One launched this campaign the week it reported a nearly $60M loss. Killing the PRA isn't going to change the inept management, lack of vision and how it under-performs and in an under-performing sector.

- RIAA is disingenuous to a point about the benefit to artists. Artist payments under the PRA go directly to the artist, not through their label. And yes, the nature of label-artist relationships in general needs overhauling (and not just major labels), however in this environment, any artist that is being exploited by a bad label contract should seek better counsel. Choice for how to run a commercial music career has never been greater.

- Where were campaigns to save the black voice in the media when performance royalties were being imposed on net radio and satellite? Online programming (podcasts, net radio, streaming sites) cannot be the beacon of hope for the future if it has to operate at a distinct financial disadvantage compared to broadcasters, while broadcast license ownership narrows.

Urban Radio Nation said...

Well said Mr. Neal. You have made some excellent points that I've not seen anywhere else on the Internet. However it seems that radio is becoming the fallguy for the many years of underhanded business practices by the record companies towards the artist they've signed to recording contracts.

Why now has this legislation gained so much support, when it seems that many members of the CBC have always had a good relationship that supports Black radio and Black media companies; but now RIAA and musicFirst have lobbied hard for what appears to be a way for the recording industry to recoup some of the hemorraging they have suffered through the decline of album sales from a consumer that prefers to download a mp3 rather than buy an entire CD.

I blog about this on my site http://www.urbanradionation.com/2009/05/hr-848-john-conyers-performance-royalty.html . I have a different perspective. I can't agree with the notion of letting Black owned radio stations, who are suffering record quarterly losses without a performance royalty tax as it is, just go by the wayside. I agree that Black radio, without sugar-coating it, sucks. But if Black owned stations go bankrupt, there won't be a bailout, and there won't be any other broadcaster willing to replace or serve the local community over the air and I don't see a revival of radio that serves the community happening on the Internet with the impact that Black stations had during the late 60's to the 90's. Sad to say that day is gone. -Joe S. urbanradionation.com

ahenderson said...

The industry has definitely facilitated the slow death of black radio, but Ipods and perhaps, a bit of Sirius radio certainly isn't helping either. Now, I am upset by radio commentary on a DAILY basis, but I too, worry that we may be throwing the baby out with the bath water, which is essentially the question being put forth here. I do a lot of traveling and I guess I just find my Ipod too impersonal. What are our other options to get the smidgen of black news from our car radio, other than what is offered on NPR?

rebelcontent said...

ahenderson, what I find interesting is the presupposition that "Black Radio" will die if Radio One does. Should it be taken for granted that they will not be replaced by more adept owners? There may be an opportunity for those who will not only return the local/community voice to broadcasts, but also run their businesses and content to attract audiences and optimize revenue across multiple channels, including new media-something that traditional media (radio and print, with TV not far behind) has failed to do.

The programming that has come from the consolidation model has led to decreased audiences. Perhaps that breaking up, whether it is Clear Channel or Radio One will be a good thing.

As for news in the car, here are two thoughts:

1) Community radio - I do a radio show for a community station. Are local black communities willing to lend their support to sustain a non-profit broadcast venture?

2) WiFi-enabled portable devices. Trade up your iPod for a Touch or download an app for the Blackberry (or other PDA) and access, download and cache a plethora of news sources. And yes, I do understand the digital divide is still an issue, however news media in general has moved in this direction. Despite the resistance to change that Kdub notes, black folks need to move with it, just as the people clinging to their daily printed newspaper will have to move as well.