Foul Air

5/24/1996

I recently received a brochure via fax extolling the virtues of “Fair Air”.  I glanced at the information briefly before picking up the phone and calling Jonas Cash.  I was sure it was a spin-off on the A.I.R. competition.  I was wrong.  This new entity has no connection with A.I.R. unless you, like me, confuse the two because of the similarity of the names.

“Fair Air,” fronted by former record executive John Brodie and former programmer Jeff Wyatt, proposes a new way of doing promotion.  In meetings with various record companies and radio stations in the past few months, the two have laid out a plan to change the way we have been doing business.

In a nutshell, “Fair Air” works like this:  Programmers who agree to participate hook into the “Fair Air” computer system.  Each week there is a list of records for a programmer’s consideration.  A programmer guesses where the record will peak on the national sales chart.  Depending upon the programmer’s acumen, he/she is rewarded in a competition with other participants.  (Sound familiar?)

If the programmer chooses to listen to a particular record and fill out an electronic “questionnaire” that is e-mailed to the respective record company, the programmer will receive three dollars from the record company.

Should a programmer air one of these records, the radio station would receive between $200 and $600 from the record company for this one spin, depending on market size.  The programmer would also be obligated to e-mail the record company with all the results of the research generated from this one spin.

So what’s wrong with this picture?  In my opinion, the fish are in the trees!

First of all, it opens up a legal can of worms.  In the brochure, “Fair Air” even mentions the payola scandal that rocked our industry and vows a completely legal way of doing business.  Maybe.  But I have some questions.  If a radio station receives money for playing a record, this money must be documented in two ways:  First, the radio station must run a disclaimer stating that the record that is being played has been paid for by a specific record company.  Second, the station must internally document the plays and payments received.

If listeners hear the disclaimer, are they apt to react differently to the record that follows?  Almost assuredly.  And if a programmer is paid to play a record, when does payola begin and end?  If you are paid to play a record, when do you stop running the disclaimer?  After only one play?  It seems to me that a case could be made that payola would be in effect for every play, making the station run the disclaimer every time the record spins.  If this is not the case, what would prevent an unscrupulous record person from paying a programmer $10,000 for playing a record, but making the entire payment for only the first play it received?

The FCC is famous for not making decisions.  The FCC usually grants no permission for specific rule-bending.  The FCC generally waits until rules have been bent and public perception has been weighed before questioning a particular station about a specific act.

Is “Fair Air” within the boundaries of current FCC regulations?  Who knows?  Who wants to be the test case to find out?  Does any station want to run the risk of questions about payola when it comes time to renew its license?  Not only do you have to admit you’re taking payola, but you have to substantiate that it’s a legal proposition.  You better call Johnnie Cochran!

What about record companies?  “Fair Air” claims that this new system will level the playing field.  Who, in the record business (or radio, for that matter), wants a level playing field?  We make our living in this business on relationships and our ability to influence others depending on the strength of those relationships and the passion we bring with them.  If I, as a record person, have worked long and hard establishing a relationship with a programmer, why would I want to share my time with another record person who hasn’t spent the time or energy doing the same thing?  If I have the talent and the desire to work longer and harder to do a better job, why would I want to share my efforts with someone who happens to type faster on a computer?

As a record company, I’m supposed to pay for the “privilege” of giving every other company the same opportunity I’ve invested both time and money in achieving?  Not hardly.

And what about the programmer?  Suppose I really believe in a record and jump on it out of the box.  I expect a commitment from the record company for this early support. And I get it because the record company will bend over backwards to reward a programmer who works with them on breaking new artists.  Why should I have to share that commitment with another programmer who jumps on the bandwagon up to six weeks later?  What incentive or desire do I have to make early decisions when I get the same reward for waiting?

If I’m a good programmer, I will find ways to work with and manipulate record companies to my best interest.  Through my efforts and relationships, I can create promotions and concerts that my competitors can’t…because they aren’t as talented or don’t work as hard as I do.  If I’m a record promotion person, through my efforts and relationships, I can work with and manipulate programmers to my best interest.

I want to be judged (and paid) on my ability to do my job better than the other person.  Not because I’m a computer expert.  If that was the case, I’d be working for Apple.

“Fair Air” sounds like an idea dreamed up by a record guy that didn’t make any calls and a programmer who wouldn’t take any.  In my opinion, those who would seek to make this playing field level are those programmers and promoters who are merely adequate in their jobs, and those Sr.VPs who will take, “I couldn’t get him to respond to my e-mail” as an excuse.

In an effort to try and find another way to bleed cash from record companies, “Fair Air” uses a scare tactic to try and drum up business.

This should be called “Seeking Cash And Money.”

SCAM, for short.