for use in television commercials has become a more attractive option to the many groups
excluded from radio play as both a quick payday and an opportunity for broad exposure.
Where maximizing profits led to standardization and predictability within commercial
radio stations (Rothenbuhler 81-82), the consolidation of radio has resulted in
standardization and predictability between markets, such that bands that formerly may
have been denied airplay on some stations and granted airplay on others are practically
locked-out of all. Accordingly, those who may have previously dismissed the licensing of
songs for use in advertising as, on the whole, compromising, have been forced to
reevaluate the practice and generate more detailed criteria to apply to specific instances.
This article explores the ways in which individuals in various positions within the music
industry and related industries, including independent label owners and musicians, as
well as serious fans conceive of the practice and how they distinguish appropriate from
inappropriate uses of popular music in television commercials.
Frith considers the relationship between popular music and commercial
industries: “Individual consumption is not records’ only fate as commodities; they are
also used as the ‘inputs’ for other media. This is most obviously true for radio … but
even when the media are not so closely joined, the record industry can be a means to
further profits” (127). He further mentions product endorsements and film soundtracks as
two of the ways in which music is used to profit another industry. When Frith’s Sound
Effects was published, rock was already no stranger to commercial affiliations – tours
were being sponsored by products (perfume company Jovan’s sponsorship of the Rolling
Stones’ 1981 tour is considered a tipping point), musicians had long been performing on
television shows, from Ed Sullivan to Top of the Pops, and movie soundtracks were a
Convention