NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- The revelation that the National Football League would like this season's Super Bowl halftime performer to pay to play further illustrates Pandora's (P) profound impact on the music industry.
To a considerable extent, Pandora has managed to popularize -- or at least normalize -- the notion that artists should accept exposure in lieu of meaningful amounts of cash. And, of course, the NFL, which provides exposure via more than 100 million viewers during its halftime, is more than happy to the embrace the concept. For goodness sake, even Rolling Stone tilts the scheme toward all-around fair proposition:
When reaching out to artists, league representatives asked some acts if they would exchange a headlining slot for a portion of their post-Super Bowl tour earnings, or make another type of financial contribution to the NFL ...
... Considering the Halftime Show has only grown more popular in recent years — this year's performance with Bruno Mars and the Red Hot Chili Peppers drew 115.3 million viewers, compared to the 112.2 million who watched the game — it makes sense they'd want a piece of the pie ( bold emphasis added).
Of course. Makes complete sense ... for the NFL.
Rolling Stone goes on to further justify the league's cash grab:
The artists themselves do tend to capitalize on the exposure of such a performance ...
First, the NFL wants to make more money. Plain and shameful. Not paying the halftime performer reduces an expense. In theory, this increases profits. Pretty straightforward. But how did this notion of "exposure" catch on? I'm convinced we have, at least in part, Pandora to thank.
A cornerstone of practically every argument Pandora makes in favor of itself vis-a-vis royalties is exposure. Pandora argues artists receive such valuable exposure they wouldn't otherwise receive via its platform that they should not focus so obsessively on the royalties they receive -- or lack thereof. In some instances, I agree with Pandora here.
When Pandora plays music by an artist that would never see the light of day on other mediums (e.g., broadcast radio) it is generating airplay that would not have happened without Pandora. While this doesn't justify paying too low a royalty or no royalty at all, it lends to the exposure argument. Musicians should be able (or at least try) to leverage this exposure into revenue outside of and beyond royalties. This even applies to more established names, including the ones bandied about for the 2015 halftime -- Katy Perry, Rihanna and Coldplay. But only to a limited extent.
The exposure argument loses its luster -- especially when it's being used to try to get megastars for free -- when you consider the marketing power of music.
Without music, the NFL doesn't have a halftime show. At least not one that would pull in more viewers than the game. Of course, it could conceive of something (like maybe playing all of the broadcast's commercials in succession at halftime), but, as far as I know, it has nothing ready to roll to match the power of music if music went away. So if Katy Perry, Rihanna and Coldplay are smart (and they are), they'll turn the exposure argument back on the NFL.
Sans a marquee name, your halftime show doesn't have quite the drawing power. With a lesser name at halftime, the NFL receives less "exposure" for its own brand as well as the brands of the advertisers it showcases during the halftime. It would suck for the NFL to tell halftime advertisers they're not going to be part of a Katy Perry extravaganza because she wouldn't pay to play so they'll have to settle for somebody with less cachet . . . like, I don't know, Men at Work.
Ultimately, this failure . . . the fact that the NFL could even go to these musicians with a straight face on this is the fault of the music industry. I'm not sure what the executives at record labels and other cogs of the music industrial complex are busy promoting because they do a horrific job selling the power of their product. They have allowed everybody else -- from tech companies to brands to the NFL -- to profit in myriad ways from music while they (the music industry) receive little in return other than royalties (which have become poster children in what should be a much broader, more sophisticated and visionary discussion).
Musicians should look beyond royalties. No doubt. But, in most cases (namely high profile ones) they should not be looking beyond royalties for exposure and nothing but exposure.
It's absolutely absurd for a name big enough to play the Super Bowl to pay for the "right." If any of these superstars provide the NFL with "a portion of their post-Super Bowl tour earnings, or make another type of financial contribution to the NFL" it will be a crying shame. If anything, the musicians should receive a cut of the advertising revenue the NFL generates. Because, without a music spectacle at halftime, the money the league makes from commercials, particularly at the half, probably wouldn't be quite as robust. Why should the very people who entice people to stick around in droves at halftime (as opposed to tune out for a bathroom break or some such) have to pay the NFL for the privilege of making them even more money?
--Written by Rocco Pendola in Santa Monica, Calif.