How I Deal With The GMR Situation

19

(By Tony Coloff) Radio Ink asked me for a commentary on what concerns me regarding this GMR situation. My view is from a small, independent, community-service radio station in a micro market in Northern Iowa. My answer to that question is nothing concerns me. Here are the reasons why…

Broadcasters like me helped establish the Radio Music License Committee (RMLC) to represent all broadcasters to deal with these types of music licensing issues. These issues are so complex, and require an inordinate amount of time to deal with, and the issues apply the same for all broadcasters, that it’s much more efficient to have a knowledgeable, experienced team and broadcaster volunteer board to handle all of these myriad licensing issues for broadcasters. The RMLC has handled these issues very well in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

The radio station is a small business that makes many business decisions every day (music is just one of many) to keep the community broadcast service running and in operation and solvent. The only commentary that I can give you, then, is from a business perspective in the form of a question: Why would I pay for more music at a higher rate from anyone, when I have already paid license fees at a reasonable rate from three reputable music licensing organizations: ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC?

Point 1: ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC license me the right to pay for, and play, such an enormous amount of music, that if I played each song licensed just once, it would take five years to play every song that I am licensed for. Therefore, with the law of supply and demand, I am drowning in supply, and have no demand for more.

Point 2: If anyone else demands that I play THEIR licensed music and demands that I pay them a higher rate to play that music, then business dictates that I decline their generous offer, because I already have an enormous amount of licensed music, on which the license fees have already been paid, and have no need for more.

Point 3: If anyone threatens the well-being of my broadcast station with a $150,000 fine for any inadvertant or accidental playing of only one of THEIR licensed songs, then business dictates that I be diligent in removing any and all of THEIR songs from my playlist, so that a fine does not financially destroy my broadcast station.

Point 4: And if that same anyone won’t provide a list of THEIR songs and refuses to inform my station the titles and artists of the songs I must get rid of, to keep from getting fined $150,000 for EACH inadvertant or accidental play, then business dictates that that anyone needs to be prosecuted for running a scam.

Tony Coloff is the General Manager of KIOW FM-107.3 in Forest City, Iowa, and can be reached at [email protected]

19 COMMENTS

  1. In Australia the broadcast facilities pay a fixed amount of their gross into one pot. The writers are paid out of that money. It’s up to the writers or their representatives to fight over who gets what from the pot. Broadcasters know going in what they’re going to pay and are not blindsided by a Christmas Eve email like we were here.

  2. The big question is why is radio paying the writers….shouldn’t that be the artist responsibility. When you go to the store and buy a dozen eggs do you pay the store and the farmer…Im getting sick of the double dipping.

    • Radio doesn’t pay the writers. Radio pays Performance Royalty Organizations, who pay the writers. The reason is because that’s what the law says. When an artist performs a song in a concert setting, they pay the writers.

  3. What am I missing?
    So much of radio has a library of around 500 tunes that are being played, particularly oldies and classic formats.
    Contemporary stations run even less on a week-to-week basis and carry on with new material as current songs run a limited period, often measured in weeks and drop off – likely to be rarely played again.
    That thousands and thousands of cuts may be available has little to do with the realities of modern airplay.
    Is the slapping down of this new and ugly attempt to break in and extort extra monies from the industry going to really be all that difficult to toss into a dumpster?
    If I need to be schooled on this matter, I am open to such an education.

    • Two things: GMR has the rights to songs written by The Eagles, Tom Petty, and Bruce Springsteen. They are the foundation of classic rock radio. GMR has the rights to Paul Overstreet, who wrote hits for Randy Travis, so there is classic country. GMR has rights to songs written by Taylor Swift, so there is pop and country. GMR has rights to songs written by Shane McAnally, who writes a lot of country hits. So they have a wide range of songs in the current airplay library of most radio stations. Some of their writers co-write with non-GMR songs, so an additional license is still required. As I said earlier, the issue is paying one writer more money for the same song. Or paying writers of these songs more than writers of other songs. It’s an issue of fairness, and those matters usually get worked out in the courts.

      • I think it hilarious that a programmer thinks that a radio station can’t survive without playing songs by 3 or 4 artists. Tell em to drop dead like we did the Dixie Chicks-who never really came back

        • Once again, this isn’t about artists, but writers. Some writers pen songs for lots of artists. They have 65 writers signed up, including Don Henley, John Lennon, Pete Townshend, Joe Walsh, Jon Bon Jovi, Pharrell Williams, Drake, Bruno Mars, Smokey Robinson, John Mayer, and Bruce Springsteen. Those writers also happen to be artists, but you might not recognize the writers on the list, who include Luke Laird, Shane McAnally, and JD Souther.

          • you might know that money-grubbing weeny Springsteen would be in on this. “The Boss” huh-The Weenie

  4. Tony has the right idea – IF every radio station would take the time and demand a list of songs/artists – 15,000 radio stations might make an impact. In the 60’s and 70’s, music was sent to radio stations free. Musicians, record labels wanted their music played. Really didn’t need a subscription service. What’s to prevent another entity to sign national recording artists and demand payment for playing their licensed music? Doesn’t make any difference to me if they are songwriters, composers, musicians, the mixer, the custodians who clean up the studio afterwards (where does it stop?) … they should all be lumped together and let THEM fight it out.

    If these “musicians” don’t think radio play affects the popularity of their music, merchandise sales, and concert attendances – eliminate their songs and send a signal “we aren’t going to take it anymore”. Tony’s idea is a great way to legalize “payola” – if we have to pay you to play you, we don’t play you. How big is your music library? With my small station – I’ll bet eliminated some artists from the playlists will generate little listener response. Finally, where is the NAB, RAB, FCC, and Congress? I’m guessing only 15% will share and press this issue with these organizations to become pro-active in solve this issue – if nothing else – putting a hold on the “drop dead signup date” until a solution can be found. My letters/emails will be sent today. Good points Tony …. I thing your idea is excellent – and my letters//email will go out today to the NAB, RAB, and Congressmen an women who represent me.

    • Tony, keep in mind that radio has ALWAYS paid a performance right for the use of the songs they play, going back to the 1930s. This is a new royalty organization that isn’t bound by some existing rules or laws. The organization radio uses to handle these issues is the Radio Music Licensing Committee. Currently, that committee is having a battle with GMR. GMR wants to negotiate directly with stations. That makes it more difficult, and probably more expensive. It’s very similar to problems radio once had with SESAC.

      In answer to your questions, for the most part new music is still free for stations to download. That doesn’t include catalogue music. There are also music subscription services. But they don’t always cover the airplay rights. You should read the small print in your agreement, and some may offer coverage for this new royalty. There is nothing to prevent other entities from breaking with BMI and ASCAP, and demanding more money. In fact, Sony has already indicated a willingness to do so. That’s why I say this issue will be decided in the courts.

  5. Tony’s excellent comments mirror those of most owners in small markets, thus, the majority of radio. The recorded music that is played on the air has been released, willingly, by performing artists for public consumption. If the public likes what they hear, the artist is rewarded through a variety of channels. If the public doesn’t care for it, nothing happens and the artists does something else for a living. Radio should be compensated for this free exposure we give artists. After all, we ask advertisers to pay for displaying their wares on the air, don’t we? If the public doesn’t respond to that exposure, the advertiser pays anyway, artists do not.
    As for compensating singers to play their music? forget it.

    • This isn’t an artist royalty. This is for the songwriter. Their only compensation is from such a usage royalty, and it’s been the law for 80 years.

      • I’m well aware of who gets ASCAP BMI and SESAC royalties. But now, it’s the artists who want a cut. Dionne Warwick, Rosanne Cash and others have lead the charge. Might be time for the cash to run the other way for the reasons I’ve stated.

        • That’s a different issue. Some radio groups like iHeart and Beasley have negotiated a direct deal with US based labels like Warner Brothers and Big Machine in exchange for other consideration. These are similar to the deal proposed by the NAB 8 years ago. It was rejected by the RIAA and the foreign labels. They want a government imposed royalty. That takes an act of Congress, and so far, actual legislation hasn’t come to the floor.

  6. Am I miss understanding the GMR connection? It’s my understanding that the GMR license is for some of the same music we’re paying ASCAP, BMI etc for. It’s just for the writers share of the music fee. So removing songs that we are supposed to license through GMR are some of the same songs we already pay for meaning our extensive library is cut significantly.

    • Yes that is correct. What GMR is demanding is a higher royalty for their co-writer, which is unfair to BMI, ASCAP, and SESAC. Obviously this will be going to court at some point.

  7. I fully agree with Mr. Coloff, but here’s what I don’t get, after reading multiple times words similar to “…if that same anyone won’t provide a list of THEIR songs and refuses to inform my station the titles and artists of the songs…” it took me about 5 seconds to uncover this at the GMR web site: https://globalmusicrights.com/faqs#artist_list

    Am I missing something, or is this “won’t provide” a ruse to complain?

  8. There are so many examples of what could be called “institutionalized insanity” in our cultures that radio practitioners ought not be surprised.
    After all, Radio has been scrambling in its attempts to justify the status quo for a very long time.
    That exploitive marauders show up from time to time is just another expected eventuality. Unless it’s not expected.

  9. Preach it!! This whole business of not being clear about what to avoid or not play is insane. Radio already pays more than it’s fair share for the music we play and provides an opportunity for artists to grow and be financially rewarded. Bullies should not and will not be tolerated.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here