Biting The Hand That Feeds You

Radio's New Rules Of Engagement May Not Lead To Marriage

Recently, the American Association of Independent Music (A2IM), after meeting with the Federal Communications Commission, offered a voluntary arrangement with Clear Channel, CBS Radio, Citadel and Entercom that establishes some new, so-called "rules of engagement" between independent record labels and commercial radio.

At the heart of the agreement is an effort to create a commitment from radio that equates to more than 8,000 half-hour blocks of airtime dedicated to independent music, which amounts to a 30% market share. Endorsed by all the radio groups, this represents a $7 million content commitment and is a good-faith demonstration of what they feel should be radio's commitment to this music and these artists.

Does Urban Radio Have A Responsibility to Develop Artists?

One of the ongoing complaints from the independent record community has been that Urban radio no longer has the patience or the commitment to help develop its artists. While recent multiple song success from new artists has moved this criticism further toward the background, it's still a hot-button issue for many. This week we want to examine that commitment and see how Urban format(s) have developed their artists.

Urban radio programmers for years had a reputation for being musically adventurous and artist-friendly. Lately, with the advent of callout research and tightly controlled playlists, that has changed. While it's true there was some development of artists in the '90s and earlier, that commitment probably doesn't exist in the same way today. It's also true that things were different back then. The reality is that records went uniquely to the radio station. Take a song like Robin Thicke's "Lost Without You." As big as it is today, it's hard to fathom that Top 40 and even some Rhythmic stations didn't want to deal with that record at all, initially. So Urban radio got to nurture and foster the growth of that artist without all of the format-similar stations jumping on the track at the same time. This environment allowed the artist to build an audience base of tastemakers that usually doesn't exist today for most Urban stations. Now, with America's "buzz fuzz," the FCC, involved, we find they have taken a free-market approach in an attempt to fix an imbalance in the marketplace. Most of us would still prefer to make our own music decisions without government interference.

In some senses though, it's like comparing apples with oranges. Back in the day, it wasn't looked at the same way by the industry. There wasn't this expectation that if you got a record played at Urban radio, it was going to sell hundreds of thousands of copies. Once Urban became a format from which other formats cherry-picked artists and songs, you didn't really have the time to develop an artist. The artists left behind are almost, by definition, not going to be huge, mass-appeal bands. That said, it's not a fair criticism to say that Urban programmers aren't developing artists today, because it's really not the radio station's job to do that. There isn't a GM or cluster manager out there today who would tell their PDs to develop artists now so we can have great ratings next year or two years from now. The programmer's job is simply to get ratings and to do it any way they can. Generally, that means play the best music available at that moment. As an offshoot you would like to have artist development so that you have artists you own. But what artists does Urban radio own right now? Very few. Even the ones we own, we share or we just barely own.

Theoretically, under the new proposed regulations, both sides have emerged having been motivated to do the right things for the right reasons to benefit the listeners. Does that mean playing a marginal record simply because it's the best of what the local independents or artists have to offer? More than ever I personally have confidence that the format will give artists who have real potential and/or have had successful first singles a second chance. And that's as it should be. With quality local acts, when you have touring, video, and sales going, you have artists worthy of taking a chance on.

I also think that part of the reason for government involvement, other than the obvious payola implications, is that the notion developed from major-market stations that were playing disposable, one-hit wonder songs and realizing their ratings weren't growing. They really needed to find new artists and grow with them. Part of this also stemmed from programmers anticipating that some of the major releases would carry them, but those releases came and went so quickly the big artists didn't feel as big. So now Urban radio seems to be trying to grow with the artists and find their own, and stay one step ahead of the other formats.

It looks like some record labels are being more selective and even testing some songs before putting their money into artists that seem to have it all going for them. At the same time, radio feels there are more records being released than ever. Overall, the Urban formats are on track, but we can do better. The format has to embrace artists beyond just the first single to keep listeners coming back.

Radio is developing artists to a certain degree, but there isn't a commitment or mindset by most stations to develop artists. Radio doesn't feel it's their responsibility to start new artists. They feel their commitment is to play the best music, and, however that unfolds, it has to be has to accounted for. If you don't have the callout, phones and sales, yet you do have top 10 records, you still don't necessarily have an automatic on track two. And if you don't get track two, track three is pretty much non-existent.

Fortunately, there are still some programmers with an ear and guts who feel it's their job to deliver big ratings, but also to be known as "the new music station." For that reason they do feel it's part of their responsibility to stand behind an artist after the first track. They still need the record to perform, but they will be there for the artist, especially if the act has worked for them. This can be seen two ways: the actual results of the music on the air and what kind of artist identification the station has with this artist. In this regard, it is also the responsibility of the artist and label to work with the station.

So, is Urban radio biting the hand that feeds it? Is the format doing a disservice by not playing more new artists? Is Urban more about the song than the singer? It depends on whom you ask. These questions have all been raised, and there are theories openly trumpeted by radio but barely acknowledged by labels. In the final analysis the blame for the proliferation of this situation lies not only with the labels, but also with radio. We're all responsible, and we're all to blame. But we're not going to solve this problem overnight. I believe the recent move by the FCC is the first of many steps that radio and the record industry will have to take together to promote the health, longevity, fair airplay and success of the music and artists we love.

Word.