Audacy Filed For Bankruptcy

[davideduardo]

Not likely, if ever, to happen. It’s too late to turn the clock back three decades to undo deregulation.

That would make radio even worse. The places in the world where radio is doing better than the U.S. are nations where companies are allowed to have one or more national services with transmitters filling every part of the country with a simulcast signal.

When you make radio too small, national advertisers will just abandon it. Too many separate buys, too much "paperwork" and too many chances for poor coordination of copy, timing of special sales events and the like.

In the U.S. you see little Walmart or Target or the like on radio. If you go to countries with Carrefour operations, for example, you hear them all over the radio because it is easy to buy national coverage with just a few contacts.

We have little local stations in the U.S. because back in the 1930's politicians were afraid that if radio were too big, it would threaten them. So we got a thousand 250 watt stations and only 24 or so 50 kw "clear channel" stations.

 

[davideduardo]

Of course, if we didn't have a broken government, they could undo at least a bit of it, because it seems like when something gets deregulated that was formerly quite regulated, it has a tendency to self destruct (notably exception: the present-day AT&T, which slowly but surely gobbled up many of the former baby bells to reform a network that somewhat resembles the former Ma Bell in size and scope).

Radio was deregulated a bit in the 90's because Docket 80-90 had so increased the number of FMs, allowed them to move to bigger markets and allowed many to increase class and power. End result: by the early 90's, half of all U.S. radio stations did not show a profit.

 

[Mark Roberts]

A 93 year old is not the investor anybody should be worried about. I'm scared of Manoj Bhargava and what he wants to do with Audacy and Cumulus.

Not that it's going to stop the New York Post....

 

[pjc1961]

Link to the above-mentioned NY Post article:

George Soros fund tightens grip over US radio waves after controlling bankrupt Audacy

Soros Fund Management is tightening its grip over the US radio industry after scooping up a majority stake in bankrupt radio company Audacy.

nypost.com

 

[Theater of My Mind]

Right wingers love to fearmonger with their boogeyman George Soros. Meanwhile they have no problem with their MAGA hosts dominating virtually every commercial talk station in the county.

 

[Mediafrog+]

Right wingers love to fearmonger with their boogeyman George Soros.

Elsewhere I posted that right-wingers are suffering from “Soros Derangement Syndrome.”

Meanwhile they have no problem with their MAGA hosts dominating virtually every commercial talk station in the county.

The voices on U.S. talk radio are almost 100% extreme right wing. Rational thought is a rare commodity.

The biggest threat to democracy in the U.S. is not Communism, Socialism, or even Islamic radicalism, but rather, Fascism.

 

[vchimpanzee]

notably exception: the present-day AT&T, which slowly but surely gobbled up many of the former baby bells to reform a network that somewhat resembles the former Ma Bell in size and scope

Ironically, it wasn't the AT&T from before that took over the companies. SBC, formerly Southwestern Bell, took over AT&T and changed its name to AT&T, and continued takeovers.

 

[Shark2022]

That would make radio even worse. The places in the world where radio is doing better than the U.S. are nations where companies are allowed to have one or more national services with transmitters filling every part of the country with a simulcast signal.

When you make radio too small, national advertisers will just abandon it. Too many separate buys, too much "paperwork" and too many chances for poor coordination of copy, timing of special sales events and the like.

In the U.S. you see little Walmart or Target or the like on radio. If you go to countries with Carrefour operations, for example, you hear them all over the radio because it is easy to buy national coverage with just a few contacts.

We have little local stations in the U.S. because back in the 1930's politicians were afraid that if radio were too big, it would threaten them. So we got a thousand 250 watt stations and only 24 or so 50 kw "clear channel" stations.

I understand what you're saying, but we are where we are because local radio just isn't done right many places. Good content trumps local content, yes, but when local radio is trimmed to the brim, sounds similar to subpar national content and not delivering results, that's not helping anyone. Some local companies provide a good investment for local businesses in the market, some don't. With a top down national feed being everywhere, you create monopolies, there's less jobs, less avenues for live events, to help local businesses, and less of a chance to create enthusiasm and connection, which won't deliver as well. A network may be easier for big box chains, but it would be less appealing to local sponsors. Look at sports radio, in most cities a station carrying the national feed wouldn't have a chance or as many opportunities to create revenue as a mostly or partly local one. Plus, what works in New York may not in Alabama.

 

[cc333]

Ironically, it wasn't the AT&T from before that took over the companies. SBC, formerly Southwestern Bell, took over AT&T and changed its name to AT&T, and continued takeovers.

Yes, you're right.

The post-splitup baby bell Southwestern Bell, as you said, became SBC, then they bought their former parent subsidiary and, rather like a corporate shapeshifter of sorts, SBC then assumed their former parent's identity, to maintain historical continuity.

c

 

[TheBigA]

With a top down national feed being everywhere, you create monopolies, there's less jobs, less avenues for live events, to help local businesses, and less of a chance to create enthusiasm and connection, which won't deliver as well.

You can do both, and that's how the US system has always worked. It's a combination of local and national. So they provide some access for local events and local news, but they also utilize some national content. Keep in mind all of the music they play comes from international music conglomerates, not local artists or record labels. The reason why all-national programming typically doesn't do well is there is no connection between the station and the public. But if you integrate some national with some local, then you have the ability to make that connection.

 

[Shark2022]

You can do both, and that's how the US system has always worked. It's a combination of local and national. So they provide some access for local events and local news, but they also utilize some national content. Keep in mind all of the music they play comes from international music conglomerates, not local artists or record labels. The reason why all-national programming typically doesn't do well is there is no connection between the station and the public. But if you integrate some national with some local, then you have the ability to make that connection.

True, love him or hate him, the best example of that is Rush Limbaugh. Lots of local stations were put on the map by adding his show. A Rush listener could then also become a listener for the local afternoon show afterwards. There's plenty of great syndicated national programming, just that 24/7 programming coming from one studio sent to thousands of unmanned transmitters across the country isn't the right way to do it.

 

[TheBigA]

24/7 programming coming from one studio sent to thousands of unmanned transmitters across the country isn't the right way to do it.

It depends. For a lot of people in isolated rural areas, it's their only way to get access to current music and news. Not every small market has the resources for local staff. It's all a function of what the market will bear. So you can't make a universal generalization about something without all of the information. At the same time, it's perfectly legal and proper for someone to obtain an LPFM license and do all local programming to their small rural community.

 

[Kent]

Elsewhere I posted that right-wingers are suffering from “Soros Derangement Syndrome.”

I strongly suspect most right-wingers hate Soros when they didn't even know who he was before 2015 due to Russian propaganda. Putin hates him because Soros was the one who funded the opposition to Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia around the time he was taking power in Russia. He was always afraid Soros could do to him what he did to Slobo. Now, I'm naturally skeptical of billionaires. Few of them become billionaires by virtue of hard work. If you want to say he's not a good guy and will be 1,000 times worse to work for than David Field ever was, I'm inclined to believe it. Private equity usually makes the worst corporate CEO look like Mr. Rogers.

True, love him or hate him, the best example of that is Rush Limbaugh. Lots of local stations were put on the map by adding his show. A Rush listener could then also become a listener for the local afternoon show afterwards.

I've never bought the "Rush Limbaugh saved AM radio" narrative. If you want to say he was talented and one of the best at what he did in the business, you won't get an argument from me. His strategy, however, was a lot less putting little guys on the map than getting a loyal following on smaller stations and, then, going to the biggest AM station in the market and attempting to get carriage. When he first began syndication, you didn't find him on stations WBAP, KMOX, and KDKA. He was on smaller stations and left them for the biggest AM's in their areas. I don't begrudge him for doing it. I would've wanted to do the same thing if I were in his situation. You can, however, put the "he put the little guy on the map" narrative in the folder labeled "Things That Never Happened." The first stations he was on in Dallas and St. Louis are now airing religion and haven't been in the general market for over 25 years. Plus, during Limbaugh's run, AM dropped to less than 10% of listening and became even less than 5% of listening in some markets. If that's saving AM radio, I'd hate to see how its destruction would look.

There's plenty of great syndicated national programming, just that 24/7 programming coming from one studio sent to thousands of unmanned transmitters across the country isn't the right way to do it.

I'm not a fan of it, but radio station in the cloud is probably the way of the future, and we're likely to see more of it. We roughly doubled the number of FM stations on-air during the 80's, which was when the big box retailers were shutting down the mom and pop operators who were radio customers. Twice the stations and fewer advertisers means they have to make money somehow. I don't hear people wanting stations to go dark. As The Big A mentions almost every chance he gets, no one wants fewer choices. Our choices are fewer stations and fewer programming options or more options and less local programming. Everyone wants both, but we can't have that.

 

[TheBigA]

As The Big A mentions almost every chance he gets, no one wants fewer choices. Our choices are fewer stations and fewer programming options or more options and less local programming. Everyone wants both, but we can't have that.

The example I give is SiriusXM. There's no format duplication because there's no competition.

 

[pjc1961]

Audacy Asks Bankruptcy Court To Extend ‘Removal Deadline’ For Pending Civil Actions.

As it waits for the FCC to sign off on its Chapter 11 financial reorganization, Audacy has asked the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Houston to extend the deadline by which

www.insideradio.com

 

[Mark Roberts]

I've never bought the "Rush Limbaugh saved AM radio" narrative. If you want to say he was talented and one of the best at what he did in the business, you won't get an argument from me. His strategy, however, was a lot less putting little guys on the map than getting a loyal following on smaller stations and, then, going to the biggest AM station in the market and attempting to get carriage. When he first began syndication, you didn't find him on stations WBAP, KMOX, and KDKA. He was on smaller stations and left them for the biggest AM's in their areas. I don't begrudge him for doing it. I would've wanted to do the same thing if I were in his situation. You can, however, put the "he put the little guy on the map" narrative in the folder labeled "Things That Never Happened." The first stations he was on in Dallas and St. Louis are now airing religion and haven't been in the general market for over 25 years. Plus, during Limbaugh's run, AM dropped to less than 10% of listening and became even less than 5% of listening in some markets. If that's saving AM radio, I'd hate to see how its destruction would look.

This deserves repeating. Moreover, Limbaugh spawned a whole horde (!) of imitators who were clearly trying to ride a wave and kept making more and more absurd arguments to try to get attention in an increasingly crowded field.

I will admit to thinking of Limbaugh as just some loudmouth from the Bootheel. He probably was something of an embarrassment to his (quite distinguished) family as well.

 

[Theater of My Mind]

Rush Limbaugh was not the first of his kind. That honor goes all the way back to radio's earliest years and Father Charles Coughlin, considered one of the leading anti-Semitic voices of his time. He became known as the Father of Hate Radio and had a huge national audience that peaked in the 1930s.

He was followed by a long string of hate-peddling conservative hosts including the likes of Joe Pyne, Bob Grant and many others who preceded Rush. Limbaugh gets a lot of credit for being some kind of talk pioneer but what he did was really nothing new. He just came along at the right time to enter into mass syndication when hundreds of AM radio stations desperately needed to fill their schedules with talk content after their audiences had fled to FM for music. He became hugely popular, but now so is twitter/X and all the modern platforms where people can express their hate and put humanity's worst tendencies on display. Just because it's popular doesn't mean it's good.

 

[davideduardo]

But if you integrate some national with some local, then you have the ability to make that connection.

Or if the national content is relevant and interesting, you have the same thing on radio as "The Tonight Show" on TV.

Seacrest, Bones, Charlamagne. Examples of how national content with significance beats local nearly always.

 

[MarkW]

Or if the national content is relevant and interesting, you have the same thing on radio as "The Tonight Show" on TV.

Seacrest, Bones, Charlamagne. Examples of how national content with significance beats local nearly always.

Bones loses often in mornings to competing country stations that offer a local show.

Seacrest's midday shift voice tracks are nothing more than filler. Most listeners tune in for the music.

 

[TheBigA]

Conservative activist Brent Bozell is now challenging the Soros investment in Audacy:

Conservative Activist Raises Red Flag At FCC Over George Soros Investment In Audacy.

Brent Bozell’s Media Research Center is asking the FCC to deny Audacy’s change of ownership related to its Chapter 11 financial reorganization. The politically motivated Petition To Deny by the

www.insideradio.com

He has filed a Petition To Deny to Audacy's change of ownership. He has no basis for this petition.