I have my own internet radio station. It doesn't have many listeners yet because I've not been running it long. I've been asking about playing major labels and, while I have no exact pricing, I've been told it's very costly. My station plays unsigned acts who generally welcome whatever airplay they can get and so charge nothing.

With millions of unsigned acts out there, some very good, I wonder why main radio stations do not play more of these. I make no profit from my station and so the majors will not be played by me. Surely, it makes sense to not over-charge for broadcast rights, because this limits promotion. If more radio stations focused on the unsigned acts, we could see a reversal within the music industry with the majors being frozen out by their own pricing to the extent that it could become a disadvantage being signed by one of the big labels.

Listeners would soon warm to the talent among the unsigned singers and bands.

I wonder what views others have on this issue.

I think it's filtering.

Listening to songs is very time consuming, so rather then listen to songs at random I'd rely on a dozen trusted opinions to filter out the absolute dross for me.

That's what the major radio people do through other means.

I like to trawl through the unsigned and am often pleasantly surprised by the quality that I find. Some of the major signings tend to be very same-ish and rather unimaginative. I don't mind people recommending bands to me, that's another way to get to know about them, but I do agree that the main radio stations play a very restricted selection of stuff. The digi TV music channels are the same. That's where the internet kicks in - to provide us with the chance to discover bands/acts which would otherwise remain unheard.

So, keep playing the new music DJ John - and you're welcome to post a link to your station on here, I'm sure JK won't mind.

I'm just now reminded of an old record shop up in Sunderland during the 1970s, packed from top to bottom with just about every available vinyl release. I went in there after months of trying to find a certain record. The guy went to a tightly stocked shelf and thumbed through until he found the one I wanted. None of the major stores had it in stock. I guess that's a kind of pre-digital version of what we are discussing here. The little man brings us the goods while the majors wallow in self interest.

DJ John wrote:
Surely, it makes sense to not over-charge for broadcast rights, because this limits promotion.
A slippery slope if ever I saw one! It basically opens the door to individual negotiation for licensing. As a gentle reminder, this killed the very notion of mechanical rights dead in the US.

If more radio stations focused on the unsigned acts, we could see a reversal within the music industry with the majors being frozen out by their own pricing to the extent that it could become a disadvantage being signed by one of the big labels.

Listeners would soon warm to the talent among the unsigned singers and bands.

I wonder what views others have on this issue.
Currently, the only real rights I receive are for radio/TV use. Try and convince me again that I should go for a lower rate! In the good old days, radio plays led to record sales. That ain't happening anymore. The only real income for a songwriter is from plays.

On a more serious note, you are offering musicians a choice: either pay someone to promote you and then hopefully find yourself on playlists; or pay to get played on hobby radios (musicians and labels still have to pay studio costs etc, plus the cost of promoting to these radios). I'm not sure lowering the rate will lead to increased revenue at the end of the day. Has there ever been a case of this already?

Interesting bit on the lunchtime news today about small business (cafes, shops, bakeries, etc.) being made to turn off their radios by the PRS unless they pay

I agree with both sentiments in a way. I think for the internet radio lobby there must be a fair scaleable solution whereby you pay more the larger your station grows. I think the pay per listener option is good but the entry point has to be more reasonable.

From a label's point of view I want to know that if i am paying for something I would rather pay for something that is guaranteed rather than hope and pray that the powers that be will show me kindness and play my record. So i am more in favour of advertising but in a media that I can see immediate results and frankly so far the only place to do that is online.

Radio/TV advertising could work in fact I think it can work quite well. How many songs have charted because of an Ad ? Copy the formula I think. But I think everyone here knows my thoughts about monetising your marketing and internet prescence because with sales falling you need something to give you your bread and butter.