|
|
Posted by Technomage Hawke on 03/12/06 07:06
default wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 22:51:55 -0700, "Technobarbarian"
> <Technobarbarian-ztopzpam@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> You don't know what you're talking about. "Payola" is illegal,
>>advertising songs is not, and never has been:
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payola
>
> Semantics
>
> I fail to see the distinction. Payola is a form of advertising - they
> play a particular song because they expect the public to go out and
> buy it. The record company effectively crowds out other material to
> present what they want the public to buy.
I think the point you missed about this was that "payola" is also a form of
"anti-competitive practice". it makes it a lot harder for the indi houses
to get on the air of the big boys are usurping said airtime.
>
> Just like General Mills paying supermarkets to place their product on
> a particular shelf and keep a certain amount of shelf space for that
> product.
apples and oranges. one is not the same as the other.
>
> - just as painting racecar's with logos, some actor pouring a Pepsi
> during a scene in a movie, the "Dodge" splattered across the tailgate
> of my truck, billboards, clothing logos like alligators, Guess jeans,
> et al.
sponsorship is different from "payola". a corporate sponsor has a certain
amount of say in what they want (and with good reason, they are offering
money to pay for incidentals).
>
> All forms of advertising - if it makes you feel better call it
> "marketing" In my opinion it is all the same clutter.
>
you wish.
better read up on the finer points of the law and also what constitutes
advertising and sponsorship.
NEXT!
--
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or
numbered!
My life is my own - No. 6
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|