The FCC has officially issued an enforcement advisory targeting payola involving free performances. Meanwhile, a radio-royalties battle has reignited in Congress. Photo Credit: Eric Nopanen
Look out, radio stations: The FCC has issued an enforcement advisory, complete with a dedicated email address for related complaints, targeting payola.
The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau just recently put out that firmly worded advisory, after Senator Marsha Blackburn expressed concerns about possible appearance- and performance-focused payola.
In her letter to FCC head Brendan Carr, the lawmaker specifically pointed to claims that various radio stations had compelled established and emerging artists alike to deliver free performances in exchange for airtime.
In effect, the alleged practice amounts to a little-discussed (and still-illegal) form of payola, or undisclosed payments for radio spins. The Enforcement Bureau began examining the claims, and in an update posted to X, Chairman Carr indicated that “[s]ome radio stations appear to be violating the FCC’s prohibition on Payola.”
The identified potential violations involve “forcing musicians to choose between (1) performing for free (or for reduced fees) at station events or (2) losing out on valuable radio airplay,” he added for good measure.
Enter the aforesaid enforcement advisory, which spells out off the bat that “neither broadcast licensees nor their personnel can compel or accept unreported free or unreported reduced fee performances by musicians in exchange for more favorable airplay.”
On the “personnel” front, perhaps the most interesting component of the advisory pertains to radio-station licensees’ obligation to ensure that individual employees aren’t selling airtime perks.
And when it comes to the “reasonable diligence” required by law in this area, certain stations could face higher standards. Employee affidavits promising to avoid payola might not cut it, the notice warns in more words.
“Thus, for example,” this important section reads, “we would expect stations that report to record charting services to demonstrate greater diligence to prevent improper conduct by its principals and employees than would a station with an all-news format.
“It may fall short of ‘reasonable diligence’ if the licensee of such a reporting station does nothing more than require its employees to execute affidavits stating that they will not violate laws and regulations prohibiting payola,” the text proceeds.
Stations that host events featuring artists – whether the professionals are compensated or not – “must take appropriate steps to ensure that all such promotions or events comply with the payola requirements,” the letter continues.
As to where things go from here, the FCC’s “enforcement staff will consider investigating substantive allegations of payola that come to its attention,” and any such claims can be forwarded to [email protected], per the letter.
Closer to the present, a long-running showdown over radio royalties has quietly reignited in Congress. That refers in part to the late-January reintroduction of the American Music Fairness Act, which has support from lawmakers (including the mentioned Senator Blackburn) on both sides of the aisle.
Terrestrial radio stations only cough up for the use of compositions in the U.S., and the noted law would compel (relatively modest) payments for recordings to boot.
Unsurprisingly, the push isn’t sitting right with big radio, which has responded with the Local Radio Freedom Act. House lawmakers last week reintroduced this years-old resolution opposing the implementation of any new performance fee or tax on AM/FM radio stations.
According to the National Association of Broadcasters, the Local Radio Freedom Act already has the support of 114 representatives. Stated bluntly, that means the American Music Fairness Act is once again facing an uphill battle.