To many, payola -- the practice of paying music programmers in return for their playing certain music -- is a dirty word, ranking low on the totem pole of disagreeable music industry practices, somewhere between ticket scalping and RIAA lawsuits.
However, interactive music webcaster Jango, with approximately six million listeners, hopes to counteract that sort of criticism with its Airplay program, launched Wednesday. Jango Airplay lets independent bands pay to have their music programmed to certain users for fees starting at $30 for 1,000 plays. To target those listeners most likely to appreciate their music, participating bands insert their songs into webcasts streamed to fans of any band they specify (an "if you like them you might like us" sort of thing).
So far, the approach appears to be working. A beta test showed that $30 netted participating bands approximately 100 "positive actions" (listeners becoming a fan of the artist, writing a comment, or clicking the "like" button). Participating bands can also send messages directly to those who have designated themselves fans of the band, and obtain data about their fans' gender, age, location and musical preferences.
But isn't payola just plain wrong, in a philosophical sense? And won't listeners freak out and quit using Jango in favor of interactive radio services that don't accept "pay for play"?
We asked Jango CEO Dan Kaufman about those issues via e-mail. In defense of the program, he responded that the payola program helps
Jango sift through new bands, and that users have reacted positively to the bands they've encountered through the Airplay feature:
The move comes a few months after Targetspot CEO Doug Perlson claimed that payola can save not just webcasters but the entire music business, in a widely-circulated piece in which he argued that the ban on payola "helps no one: not the public, nor the stations, nor the music industry, and especially not the artists." Jango, it would appear, agrees with that sentiment. Do you?
See Also:
