It’s Just Not Rock N’ Roll

Peter Jamieson, Chief Executive of the British Phonographic Industry (BPI), has suggested the introduction of quotas to protect British music from an influx of foreign material in a liberalized radio market.

The BPI claim that such a measure would protect audiences from potential interference by new owners such as the US giant Clear Channel who have been accused of implementing highly restrictive, non-transparent, pay-for-play - ‘payola’ - schedules on the company�s 1,225 US radio stations.

This comes at a time when British music is performing poorly. US artists now dominate the singles and albums charts on both sides of the Atlantic. UK airtime for home grown talent has fallen from 60% of all broadcasts to 30% over the past five years.

Sales have also shrunk, a situation Jamieson claims is due to the fall in airplay - “the statistics already show that in recent years there has been a decline in the amount of British music played on air and a corresponding decline in sales of those same British singles.”

France, Australia and Canada all currently run quota systems aimed at protecting indigenous music production. Such measures claim to stop the flood of American music, particularly rap and R&B, from drowning home grown artists.

According to the BPI it is this and not audience tastes that has allowed the emergence of strong mainstream music scenes in these countries. Enforced radio play has been the key to success, developing a music that competes in the international market.

But would the UK benefit from the same form of paternalistic protectionism?

It would be better perhaps to ask - is current British music worth protecting? A quick glance at this week�s chart (13-19 April) paints a gloomy picture. UK ‘artists’ Gareth Gates, Daniel Bedingfield and Mis-Teeq make up the home grown contingent in the top ten.

Here then is the cultural heritage the sophisticated, purveyors of pop who run the UK subsidies of major (US-owned) record labels aim to protect.

But surely such quotas would be both self-serving, a form of market failure addressing market failure!

Of course, none of this is to deny that opening the radio market may bring unfair ‘air’ play. Indeed, I suspect dubious practices exist in the current radio market.

And there is much circumstantial evidence surrounding Clear Channel’s operations in the US. To have incurred the wrath of US Congressmen, notoriously pro big business, is a real achievement. Certainly the vertical nature of the business - radio to venues to ticket sales - requires a higher degree of scrutiny if not regulation.

Ofcom will need to be vigilant in this area. The regulator is armed with a clear diversity and plurality mandate - key pieces of legislation in a new ‘two-plus-one’ radio market. And there will likely be some keen to road test its powers, which are concurrent with those of the Office of Fair Trading (OFT).

Meanwhile, the BPI should look within if they want to find the real cause of depleted sales. Home grown popular music just isn’t popular. The reasons vary. However it is impossible to deny that most releases are profit-margin productions that aim to take advantage of an easily manipulated demographic - 8-15.

This strategy has alienated mainstream listeners. As they say in the city - the fundamentals aren’t there. So the audience dance to the beat of another tune - usually American imports.

America provides music that whilst often not artistically compelling has the feel of something bigger and better - expensive music videos, attitude, movie stars, it’s glitz, it’s glamour, it’s rock n’ roll. And for the moment that will do.

In addition, UK radio audiences have also fragmented. The alternative scene has always had strong critical and cultural support even if it hasn’t provided the required level of revenues for the corporate balance sheets.

This tradition continues a pace in the UK aided by the falling costs of production and new modes of distribution. Not that the BPI are listening.

They, like their trans-Atlantic cousins the often vilified Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) rushed to thwart distribution via the internet. This they claimed risked the business, stunted investment and deprived artists. Now, ironically, calls for quotas run in tandem with those calling for a restriction in access.

With quotas the BPI may indeed risk the business, stunt investment and deprive artists. Perhaps not the revenue side - that will do very nicely indeed in the short term albeit artificially - but artistically. With quotas the BPI aim to entrench tastes as dictated by the industry. This mocks listeners.

Competition remains the only hope for real diversity. Sure, anti-competitive, integrated strategies need to be addressed. But mechanisms to artificially correct the market reduce choice and deter innovation. This would be nonsensical in a constantly innovating, wide-ranging market that already caters to all.

Ultimately, calls for quotas sell the music industry short. And Ofcom will need to be wary of such spurious claims, dismissing self-serving industry alarmists who equate poor sales with market failure before they question the questionable quality of their content.