I understand why record labels play both sides in major markets where all competitive stations are monitored reporters.
Makes sense. Support the station which supports your music and artists. If you don't add it, I'll try to get your competition to do so in hopes that forces you to add it.
What doesn’t make sense to me is in medium and small markets where there’s only one reporting station and as a result labels make sure they get everything and the non-reporter next to nothing.
Those stations may be on top for the required three books in a row and reporting status may change then. Or, the non-reporting programmers and music directors will be at reporting stations some day and they will remember.
Hopefully, the label executives who lobbied for the smaller number of reporters in hopes it would save money have now figured out that didn't work quite that way and some day they'll start to lobby for more stations in more markets to report too.
More reporters means fewer people with too much power and a more representative, credible chart.
Even less sensible: small markets where no one is a reporter and yet artist managers still try to enforce a standard rider in their contracts which says only reporting stations can welcome the show or appear on stage.
Often the only station in town which has partnered with the county fair or local casino for years finds that they are told the artist’s road manager wants it to be a “neutral show” with no welcoming station in spite of the fact that they are the only game in town.
'WILL RADIO BE PUSHED OUT OF THE CONNECTED CAR?" IS THE WRONG QUESTION FOR BROADCASTERS TO ASK - A recent A&O&B Facebook post from Jaye got quite a bit of attention. It concerned a story by the Las Vegas Review-Journal’s Todd Prince speculating about w...
4 months ago