JPF Home Page Forums General Messages General Message Forum Legitimizing Pay-for-Play

1. Jango is not regulated by the FCC, and is not breaking any laws that I'm aware of.
------------------------
That doesn't REMOTELY improve anything. Just because it isn't illegal, then it's okay? Scamming people for all sorts of things are completely legal. It's still a scam.
------------------------
2. Jango makes it very clear when an indie is being played. The site opens a pop-up asking for feedback in the form of a rating, comment, or becoming a fan.
------------------------
Does it say "we are ONLY playing this song because this artist PAID us to play it?" Because if they don't, they are being dishonest. Do they have a pop up window for ALL songs that are played, or only the paid for ones?
------------------------
3. Jango has a "buy" button built into the player, linking to iTunes and Amazon.
------------------------
So what? How does that defend pay to play? It's irrelevent. Many internet radio broadcasters have buy buttons. Big deal. A better and more fair system would be to share in the sales revenue, rather than charging to play it.
------------------------
4. Jango is personalized radio. There are no music directors. Users pick what artists they want to hear, and Jango will play those artists, along with similar artists, both major and indie. The vast majority of plays are majors.
------------------------
Again Brian, you haven't given anything that suggests that pay for play is good. Do they tell the listeners that "since you like these artists, here's some artists who PAID us to play them to you rather than us just choosing new music to introduce to you because we thought you might like it?" It's a dishonest and immoral thing. It's exactly what is evil about Payola.
------------------------
5. Jango has multiple filters to ensure the site won't be overrun by crap, which is in nobody's interest. Listeners would leave the site and artists would stop paying for plays.
------------------------
But it is ALSO filtering on a higher level. It's filtering out all great music that won't pay them for airplay completely unless it's already famous or made by a famous musician. That is what is wrong with terrestrial radio. They have a filter to not play crap too (I made that point myself earlier). They also have a filter to not play what isn't bought and paid for by years of legal and illegal relationships and agreements.
------------------------
6. Jango has a social networking component, with profiles, comments, friends, and custom stations.
------------------------
That's a great thing. But people offer those benefits without charging them for airplay. Why not use a free site and support them instead?
------------------------
7. Jango facilitates direct communication with listeners, through comments, messages, and bulletins. I've got hundreds of comments, obviously from "real" people, on my profile: http://www.jango.com/music/Color+Theory
------------------------
But do you get their contact info and can you add them to your off site personal fan list to do with what you want? You still haven't answered that question?
------------------------
8. Jango offers demographic and fan overlap reports to help artists focus their targeting.
------------------------
But do you get their names and contact info so you can use that to book tours or just to continue to develop your relationship with them outside of Jango?
------------------------

I appreciate you continuing to share your info and experience. People can read your very positive view point and my very skeptical one. I am not suggesting that everything they do outside of the pay to play scheme is bad. I am saying by making it a pay to play scheme, they ruin the rest. If you stop paying those fees, do you still get all these benefits and will you still keep getting airplay? After all, you're GOOD ENOUGH to deserve honest airplay. If the answer is anything other than a resounding YES, then it's just about making money, not providing great music for their broadcasts based on merit. And if it isn't based purely on merit, then it can never be as good as it SHOULD be. When everyone is struggling to get people to listen to even the very BEST music on any form of radio, why do you think this is a sustaining thing? If you know going in that the system will NOT play what is best, but only what is paid for that has met some minimal quality bar, it can't compete. And you're PAYING someone to do something immoral. They want to use your music to make money. AND they want you to PAY them to use it to make money. Hmmmm. They are relegated you saying you, Brian Hazard, are not talented enough to be on our stations unless you pay us. (Because remember, they play all sorts of other music and obviously don't charge those folks).

I find it insulting and offensive. And I find it to be bad business for everyone, including Jango, because they will learn that grassroots artists like yourself are not endless cash machines. You can't sustain paying them to play their music and even if YOU could, most can't.

Shouldn't we be supporting ideas that don't relegate folks like you to the "not good enough to deserve honest airplay, but good enough to charge money to and force you on our listeners whether they want to hear YOU or not" pile of dung in the basement. This is, as I said last year in the newsletter, the moral equivelent of saying "get to the back of the bus." Except in this case, those at the front aren't paying for the ticket, but you are.

It's morally wrong and over the long term, it's unsustainable. If they were equally partnering with you so that they ONLY made a dime when you made a dollar, then their model at least would have integrity. And if they believe in what they were doing, they would NEVER charge you upfront for playing you. They could partner with you in all sorts of ways. That alone would force them to make the RIGHT decision because if they ever played the wrong thing, they wouldn't make any money from it. So they would HAVE to make sure they only played the best.

This isn't anything you're doing wrong. You're a best case scenario. If it doesn't work FABULOUSLY for you, then it's a complete waste of money for anyone with less talent. I just hate to see anyone, talented or untalented, treated this way and sold on this concept that you can't succeed based on the merit of your work unless you pay someone off. That is a big part of what ruined the industry and this is just a continuation of that bad idea.

Brian

PS: Your comment that "at most they will only play 1 pay per play song out of 20" just proves my point even more. If this was so great for the listener and the quality was so high, you would never dream of even having such a limitation. If this music deserves to be played right along side the established music, you wouldn't need to limit it right?