I had no idea NAB was negotiating on behalf of broadcasters RBR Story. I don't remember being asked our opinion as to what we, as broadcasters, thought the royalty should be.
I do appreciate that the NAB used the power of numbers to get the rates down over the next couple years, but because the rate continues to increase from $.0015 to $.0025 per song per listener from 2009 to 2015, it implies that the value for the right to play this music will increase. I predict that the value will actually decrease.
With the recent proliferation of websites like MySpace, Facebook and Twitter, exposure to artist's music will increase over the coming years. New artists who cannot easily find representation by a record label will market themselves and allow their music to be used and shared for free. They will make their money on concerts and brand marketing. New artists will tell you that the labels take the lion's share of the record sales anyway. Especially early on. New artists don't need a label anymore and the computer allows them to create their music, do the artwork and showcase an image from their apartment. They will offer up their music product to promote their concert, and they'll do it for free.
Why would I consider paying increasing royalties when I can get cool new content for free? What is the point where radio as an industry says enough is enough and each station negotiates royalty rates directly with the artist? Or a radio station has the guts to play this cool new music that is given to them in exchange for exposure for the artist? Wait, isn't that how this started? Maybe radio knew more in the 50's.