The opening line of a radio commercial is your one chance to command the attention of your targeted listeners.
This spot begins in a manner that will get the attention of some listeners. But once you’ve got their attention, you’ve got to keep it….
What does that radio ad’s opening line have to do with Morongo Casino?
My best guess: It’s delivered by the comedian whose name is mentioned at :18 (14 seconds after the opening line).
That’s just a guess. At :14, they might be saying the name of another performer, for whom the :18 comedian is the opening act. Maybe the line is spoken by that other performer.
Or maybe it’s not a person to whom they refer at :14. No matter how many times I listen, I can’t figure out what the female announcer is saying.
—————– After a vigorous online forensic search to identify Morongo’s entertainment lineup at the time this commercial aired, I’ve managed to determine she was saying, “Comedian Ms. Pat performs….” —————–
The line about being pulled over by a cop probably wasn’t spoken by “Ms. Pat.” So either it’s from the opening act, or it’s just something random thrown in by one of the people involved in creating this advertising mess.
Within an appropriate context, that line could be funny. Of course, it would help if the producer didn’t choose to bury the punch line with drums.
By the way, when you list “The Top 5 Reasons to Go to Morongo This Week,” you aren’t giving anyone any reason to go.
The Good News: None of those flaws damaged the effectiveness of this casino radio commercial. The production (“We paid for this lame jingle, so we’re gonna use it!”) was so poor that no one tried to listen anyway.
Your series of articles about when it’s legal to use copyrighted music in radio commercials got me thinking about something I had been told about music use in commercials that always bothered me.
There was a client at a previous radio group I worked for who insisted on having the Bee Gees’ “Stayin Alive” as his commercial music bed. I told the client that it could not be done because of copyright laws.
The client made the usual argument (he’s been using it for years, no other station in town objected to it, etc… ad nauseum…), so the sales rep for the client took it up with the group GM. To my surprise, the GM said to produce the spot exactly the way the client wanted it, with the song.
His reasoning was that radio stations are held harmless for anything an advertiser does in their commercial. In other words, since stations cannot be held responsible for claims made by advertisers in their commercial messages, this also includes the music the client chooses to have in their commercial.
His stated belief was even if the station produced the commercial with the music bed, it’s the client’s responsibility to deal with copyright problems, not the radio station’s. He also said that this fact was backed up by the group owner’s corporate lawyer.
How that GM managed to contact the corporate lawyer in the less than 10 minutes between when he was made aware of the situation and when he spoke to me about it was one of the great mysteries of that year, but I digress.
Mind you, if anything actually was done in terms of legal action against the station, I have no doubt that the GM would have blamed me and thrown me under the bus for it. He was that kind of special guy.
Nevertheless, this does raise a point worth discussing. Does my former GM (and the alleged corporate lawyer he allegedly talked to) have any legal standing on this concept? Or is it just one more stellar example of why I am so glad I’m no longer affiliated with that organization?
As always, I’m not qualified to give legal advice.
But after having conducted exhaustive research into the topic, my legal opinion is:
Your former GM is an idiot.
I’ve never before heard the “our station can’t be held responsible for anything an advertiser says or does in a commercial” claim.
Writing about broadcasters’ responsibilities vis-a-vis political advertising, the telecommunications law firm of Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, P.L.C. says:
“That’s so even if the content could, in a non-political context, result in liability for the broadcaster – for example, if the ad contains defamatory statements or obvious untruths, or if it infringes on somebody’s intellectual property interests…”
My layman’s interpretation of the above sentence:
Your former GM is an idiot.
As we’ve explained, copyright infringement adheres to what is known as “strict liability.”
Translation: Your former GM’s assertion that “it’s the client’s responsibility to deal with copyright problems, not the radio station’s” is incorrect.
I, too, am impressed by his ability to get a formal opinion from the group owner’s corporate attorney in just 10 minutes.
Reminds me of the radio creative director whose program director insisted it was okay to use a hit song in a commercial: “I checked with the FCC.”
He checked with the FCC about intellectual property laws? Probably he should’ve played it safe by getting a second opinion from the FDA.
“True story… a local jeweler is using a copyrighted song in their commercials.
“It is a very obscure song by a relatively unknown artist. Once I determine this would be subject to copyright infringement, I asked for — AND RECEIVED — a copy of the agreement for the licensing.
“Needless to say, I was stunned. So while it is very rare, this paperwork can be obtained.”
The second Loyal Reader sent me this spot that apparently is airing in a small market in Michigan.
While Tim’s example of a local jeweler’s ad involved a song by “a relatively unknown artist,” this radio advertisement uses a very well-known song by a very well-known artist:
I’m amazed that a local burger joint was able to afford a license to use Meghan Trainor’s song.
I’m also surprised Meghan licensed it to them. Perhaps she’s old friends with the owners…
Or maybe she’s just crazy about burgers, pizza and fish fries. (I have no idea what fish fries are, and I’m not sure I want to find out.)
But somehow they must’ve obtained a license. I’m told this commercial is airing on several radio stations in the area, and of course those stations wouldn’t have agreed to broadcast a commercial that otherwise would appear to be a clear copyright violation.
Q: Is it legal to air a commercial for a musical performer’s local concert, using recorded examples of his/her music {without obtaining a license to do so}?
Answer: I know you won’t like this answer, but…No.
Jay Murphy wrote, referring to the “using music to advertise a concert”:
“I must confess I was somewhat troubled after reading your letter. No one likes to hear they’re breaking the law. I’ve been in this business long enough to know where the lines are… or at least I thought I did. All of your examples were obvious to me EXCEPT this one.
“Here’s the situation. After a conversation with my production director on this very topic, I produced an ad for an upcoming concert event. The ad is being underwritten by the major sponsor and has the full knowledge and blessing of the promoter who’s booking the acts. I do not doubt what you say is true but I need to know then…When exactly, is a concert ad ever legal?”
As it relates to copyright law, a concert ad is legal when the copyright holder(s) give permission to use the specific pieces of music in the commercial.
A license doesn’t have to be purchased; it just needs to be granted.
In the example Jay gives, “The sponsor has the full knowledge and blessing of the promoter who’s booking the acts.
If the promoter has been given authority (by the copyright holders) to authorize such usage, there should be no problem.
Steve Macaulay wrote:
“Many times in our market, a local musician or their promoter will buy airtime to promote their music and/or performance. They supply original recordings of the artist’s original song. I think that constitutes granting permission by the owner of the music.”
If a musician buys airtime to promote his music, which he provides to the radio station for use in the commercial, clearly he is granting the station permission to air his copyrighted material.
But if the musician owns the copyright to the performance but not to the composition, it’s a mistake to assume that therefore it’s okay to use, in a commercial, whatever recording he gives you.
Let’s say Paul Simon is giving a concert in your market. Paul says to your radio station, “I want the commercials to include The Sounds of Silence and also Graceland.”
Sure, Paul, no problem.
On the other hand, one of the many Paul Simon impersonators is performing in your market, doing a Paul Simon tribute show.
“Paal Sighmon” says to your radio station, “I want the commercials to include my impeccable renditions of The Sounds of Silence and also Graceland.”
Most likely he owns his own performance rights, so he can grant you a license to use them.
But if neither Paul Simon nor his representatives have granted a license to use those songs in a commercial? Uh-uh.
If Paal uses your radio station to advertise his appearance using his renditions of those two songs, without having been granted permission to do so, both Paal and your radio station might well have some legal ’splainin’ to do.
Terry Stevenswrote:
“This one concerns me:
“Air a commercial for a musical performer’s local concert, using recorded examples of his/her music? Answer: I know you won’t like this answer, but…No.”
“If the promoter or venue putting on the show is paying for the spot and their job is to promote the artist in question, wouldn’t permission from the artist/rights holder to use his/her music in the spot for the show be contained in the contract signed with the promoter?”
Yes, I think that would be quite likely. Especially if it’s a well-established promoter.
Next: I’ll share with you a current example of a radio spot that may or may not constitute copyright infringement. You can be the judge….
First, let’s listen to part of a radio commercial that recently aired in Los Angeles.
Generations of radio copywriters have been told never to say “dollars” when referring to the price of an advertised item.
The rationale behind that dictum is, “You don’t want people to think about having to spend money” to acquire whatever is being sold.
Apparently you’re supposed to hope the listener will assume the furniture sells for 300 pesos, not dollars.
But never say “dollars.”
Hogwash.
If you want to communicate with people, you want to speak their language.
In real life, there are occasions when real people typically don’t say “dollars.”
“How much is that package of baloney?”
“Lessee…Four seventy-nine.”
Saying “four dollars and seventy-nine cents” would seem a bit odd.
In a supermarket ad that boasts, “Hormel Pigs Feet, just two eighty-eight” — you don’t say “two dollars and 88 cents” because that’s not what real people say.
If you don’t believe me, just ask a pigs feet consumer.
On the other hand, if someone asks you how much you pay for your new cloud-based computer backup service and you reply, “Oh, it’s only 5 a month,” the other person will react with a quizzical look.
“5 a month? Um, you mean 5 dollars?”
Ironically, self-consciously avoiding the word “dollars” actually draws attention to the cost.
When you say the advertised furniture sells “for 300,” you force the listener say “dollars” sub-vocally. (Sub-vocally is a very impressive way of saying, “To themselves, silently.”)
Because no one says “the furniture costs three hundred,” the psychological principle of closure takes over.
Closure is the natural tendency of the human mind to impose order upon chaos.
When your brain hears “the furniture costs three hundred,” it wonders, “300 what???”
An instant later it replies, sub-vocally, “Oh, 300 dollars. Okay, fine. Let’s move along now.”
The best reason for avoiding “dollars” in a commercial is in a situation where people would be unlikely to say it in real life.
“Hey, you go that car wash down the block, right? What do they charge for a basic wash & wax, with none of their overpriced extras included?”
“Umm…Nine ninety-five, I think.”
In that situation, you’d be unlikely to say, “Umm…Nine dollars and ninety-five cents.”
On occasion, you can minimize the financial cost by employing slang when appropriate:
“…for just 30 bucks.”
or
“We’ll drive to your house; install your state-of-the-art entertainment system; install this amazing home security system that lets you see everything that’s happening anywhere in your house from anywhere in the world, simply by glancing at your new iWatch, which we’re also going to give you; and replace that unsightly firetrap that sits atop your home with a brand new slate roof…
…all for less than 3 grand.”
In that case, “3 grand” probably would be fine.
So would “three thousand dollars.”
But “all for less than three thousand” would force listeners to fill in the blank for themselves: “Huh? Oh, three thousand dollars. Why didn’t they just say that??”
This Commercial Wanted Listeners to Think “Dollars”
Let’s return to this radio commercial.
Clearly the copywriter has been trained to “minimize” the apparent price by never, ever saying “dollars.”
But in this spot, they’re talking about how much money the listener will save.
Don’t you think they’d want to emphasize the actual dollar amount that listeners can save during their sale?
Summing Up Today’s Genius Radio Copywriting Lesson
Speak to your listeners in the language they use and understand.
In fact, this is so valuable that I’m going to call this:
The opening line of a radio commercial is your one chance to command the attention of your targeted listeners.
