WGA Strike vs. AFTRA Public Performance Right for Radio

A friend of mine recently posted about her take on the WGA strike.

Click here to read her posts.

This inspired me to comment on this and compare the WGA strike to the current AFTRA cause.

WGA STRIKE
Here is where I get all Randian. Selfishness has such negative connotations a society that teaches us that a moral status is in direct relationship to our level of self-sacrifice to others and that money is evil. Money is representative of a barter system. Fair trade is something we shouldn’t just ask of our corporate, coffee-bean buyer. Fair trade is about compensation for a service that is in direct relationship to that of the value of the service. Not need-based, but rather, value for value bartering that makes complete sense in a business context. Now, this could mean trade for something other than money: health benefits, recognition, prestige and the value of these things would differ from person to person. But, generally, the influence of good writing on advertising dollar return is high, thus so should be the compensation of this product and service. Unfortunately, there is cause for a strike because for years artists have bought in to the lie that they needed to sacrifice themselves in order to get ahead in doing what they love. When enough artists are willing to do this, it tips the entire scale of the profession, as it has. Kudos to those artists making their statement with the strike, even though it requires sacrifice at this stage. It’s not just about higher wages, it’s about fair trade. I think if more people viewed it this way, they would understand that there is nothing greedy about requesting equal tit for tat, especially I this day and age. This is also why I tell people in non-artistic professions who work ridiculous hours that a person should never love their job more than their job loves them. Capitalism works as long as it is truly laissez-faire and each individual has a responsibility to themselves to make sure they aren’t getting the short end of contract negotiations. The more people that choose this on an individual level the easier it will be for everyone.

AFTRA PUBLIC PERFORMANCE RIGHT FOR RADIO
Where it gets trickier is when AFTRA starts seeking compensation from radio stations for musicians in exchange for the airplay of musical recordings.

Click here to see the AFTRA press release.

This is more difficult for me because recording artists sell music and concert tickets based on that same airplay. So, I think, while the playing of their music does benefit station advertisers, musicians are also getting exposure that is money in their bank account. When we play out the ideal AFTRA scenario of musicians getting compensated for airplay, I see my favorite internet radio stations going under for not being able to compete with the Clear Channel stations who could afford this, jeopardizing our avenues of for-the-people media and non-mainstream music exposure. If musician royalties became a legal requirement, media channels would then only pay for music that they get a sure advertiser-dollar return on OR music they get a volume-discount royalty fee on from large recording labels. This is the nature of business. As a result, the only music played on radio station would be very mainstream vanilla stuff (even more so than now!) - which would suck for new musicians trying to make a break. So, we need to really be careful in assessing value for value on contracts and consider how these requests could backfire for the industry. There are some contractual issues that will hurt artists in business more than help them, and I think this current AFTRA stance is in one of those. If recording artists get royalties for airplay, it should be very small considering the advertising gain they already get. It is this kind of protesting that makes artists look like they are ‘greedy’ – requesting money at both ends (front and back) of the business, essentially biting the hand that feeds them. This would put recording artists charging media venues on par with the federal government’s double-taxation of citizens. The only exception would be if the station in question is a non-ad, subscription-service-paid radio station (not subscription for the satellite access, but listener-subscription for an ad-free music station). And, let’s be honest, the royalties would really be more money in the pockets of recording labels than the actual artists- which is where the real injustice lies to begin with. So, unless the entire media world switches over to subscription-based musical stations and does away with ad revenue entirely, which is not out of the question as radio stations are struggling for ad dollars now, I can’t say I support this AFTRA cause on the side of musicians.

Now, I DO support performance royalties for radio talk-show hosts and disc jockeys because this is similar to that of television. Once they perform a recording, they can’t sell it themselves because it is property of the station. So, they should get a cut of station profits for replay of their performances. Same goes for writers of television shows and films. This would be fair trade.

All I'm saying is, artists going to the table to negotitate fees need to take a fair-trade stance, as well, before making demands. This is the natural law of business and industry: as in show business, entertainment industry. Who needs the money more is irrelevant. *

* You'd be surprised at how many calls I get in my staffing job of people who will try to convince me to secure them a job based on their personal need for the income: i.e. death in the family, can't pay the mortgage, have five kids to feed instead of hiring them on qualifications. I can't help but wonder if this is a product of reality television where the most helpless people a show can find earn extreme body and home makeovers simply on account of how bad off they are. It's interesting to me that people have this mindset now when applying for highly-competitive professional jobs. This sense of entitlement out of neediness really turns me off.