More transparency for radio that is also Spotify

One of the basic foundations of journalism is the clear distinction between information and advertising. As advertising formats have developed that are formally also content, some media identify them as sponsorships, while others make a show of it and do not explain the commercial nature of the matter. But, in general, the press tends to clarify this for the reader. In the case of television, product placement is regulated and covert advertising is prohibited by law, so the rule of pointing out what is paid for and what is not is also usually respected. However, there are areas in which this does not occur, and perhaps it is time for it to be regulated by legislation so that the public is clear about whether they are being served a genuine hare or a publicity cat.

A paradigmatic case is that of Spotify. It is apparently an on-demand service, but it is still a covert radio, since it is designed so that most of the listening is done based on what the application itself suggests to the user. The book Mood machine He explains how these lists are not entirely honest with listeners, as artists can benefit from appearing on them... by reducing the money they receive as compensation for the listens of their songs. Paying to be heard is what, in the United States, was known as payola, and it was banned by law. But Spotify does something dangerously similar: the artist pays to be heard – or stops charging – and the user ignores that this recommended list is not only formed based on their tastes, but also according to the economic interests of the application. And similar reflections could be made with social networks, where it is difficult to know (although it is regulated) what is a genuine recommendation and what is paid for. Only the slowness of reflexes explains this regulatory dysfunction, which harms the public.