More Consolidation is Not the Answer to Poor Business Decisions

[davideduardo]

OK, we don't have national stations, like BBC's Radio 1 and NRK's P3 -- but we have nationally syndicated shows, like ESPN Radio, Infinity Sports Network, BIN, etc. Are those so hard to sell? After all, they're national, and I would think their demographics aren't that difficult to figure out.

But none of those networks has perfect national coverages such as we sein Europe, most of Latin America and the free radio nations of Asia.

BIN has just a few stations, many with zero ratings. ESPN has a low rated format that is amply beaten by more local sports stations. Yet even nations like Chile have over a dozen well rated national networks that cover 95% of the population from Arica to then Punta Arenas. Those are an easy conceptual sale with identical demos everywhere and high performance in their target audiences.

 

[bobdavcav]

David, you would know the answer to this. How do ownership rules work in Mexico? If I understand right, the group that was leasing 93.9 in Los Angeles owned something like 15 stations, 10 of which were in Mexico City. Personally, I would support a scenario with no market caps but an overall cap of around 300 stations nationwide.
If that's not going to happen, I'm in total agreement with Lance Venta on this one, that companies like iHeart should just get rid of local brands and nationalize everything. I don't understand why iHeart in particular chooses to keep local brands around with no local content. If I were iHeart, I would kill all local brands on stations running nothing but the national format. Those stations already run what used to be called Premium Choice anyway, why not just brand them as say iHeart Hits Now and be done? At least in that scenario, there would be no question as to whether those stations are locally or nationally programmed.

 

[TheBigA]

Two FCC commissioners will participate in a Q&A session at the NAB convention next week:

Gomez and Simington To Lead FCC Policy Talks at NAB Show - Radio Ink

FCC Commissioners Nathan Simington and Anna Gomez will lead two key policy conversations at NAB Show 2025 in Las Vegas.

radioink.com

Notably absent is the chairman Brendan Carr, who is too busy with his politically-motivated investigations into NPR, Audacy, CBS, and other broadcasters.

 

[Deus Ex Machiato]

Source?

I don't know anyone who thinks Spotify is radio. However I know multitudes of people who think "radio sucks," and they proudly use Spotify or Apple Music *instead* of radio, being fully aware of the difference.

I've been working in the tech industry for a few years now, and just about everyone is in the 25-34 demo. The most common response when I mention that I used to work in radio is something along the lines of "oh, my mom/dad used to listen to the radio." (emphasis added)

Not only do the young people I work with (and I admit this is purely anecdotal) have no use for radio, but their parents have switched to streaming services as well.

Kent hit on the crux of the biscuit above when he said:

I don't see how the answer is doing what Spotify and Apple Music do not as well.

IMO, it's not the answer. No, I can't name a single Spotify DJ. But I can point you to the Podcast charts. A program where a host or group of people talk about interesting things their audience can relate to, taking occasional breaks to talk about their sponsors while spending hours not playing a single song? It sounds oddly familiar...though not entirely identical to something we used to call a "morning show."

So Spotify has music without DJs AND hours-long talk shows without music. Hmm...

It reminds me of a list of questions a former co-worker of mine developed to ask advertisers when crafting a spot or a campaign for them. At the top of the list was "what's your USP? What is your Unique Selling Point?" Yes, your (HVAC company, car dealership, wealth management company) is great and all, but...what do you do that none of your competitors do? What is it that sets you apart?

You have to offer either something that people can't get anywhere else, or failing that, a superior product than what they can get somewhere else. To my mind, radio has not come up with an answer to that question.

 

[DOGDOG]

That article is the first time I’ve heard the proposal that FM-HD subchannels be mapped to “virtual” frequencies. So I suppose any HD subchannel could be mapped to any unused frequency in a market? Or perhaps to a “frequency” outside the FM band, such as 109.1, 112.5, 115.3, etc.

On a recent thread on one of the TV boards, there was discussion of “pointer channels” being used on ATSC 3.0 transmissions. These would be mapped as any other TV subchannel, but there is no actual video or audio being transmitted. Instead there is a data file that launches an online stream. Such pointer channels could be leased out to streamers for easy viewer access.

So an example would be a Channel 24.1 as a main OTA program, with 24.2, 24.3 and 24.4 also transmitted as OTA subchannels. But 25.5, 25.6, 25.7 etc. would launch streamers.

I suggested in that thread that radio could do the same thing, with virtual HD channels launching audio streams in a connected car.

Just letting my mind ramble a bit.

Everybody is missing the point. The "savior" for radio is to go ALL DIGITAL. It will save radio just like AM Stereo and Quad FM. Just imagine how all the money will be pouring in with left vs. right garbage in digital!!! Just think of how the industry will be saved and the big companies can add 250 more Vice Presidents!

 

[ted chittenden]

You know, radio could come back but for a very different (and negative) reason: those tariffs President Trump announced on Tuesday. Yes, it's true that radios, like computers, are assembled in places outside of the U.S. However, radios are still cheaper than computers and cell phones and if the prices of the latter go high enough, people just might abandon them and return to radio.

As I said, I think this is a very negative reason to go back to radio but I do know people who can barely afford to keep up with their computer, satellite and cable connections... And, of course, those tariffs, if they do enough damage, might be very short-lived...

 

[Mediafrog+]

However, radios are still cheaper than computers and cell phones and if the prices of the latter go high enough, people just might abandon them and return to radio.

People aren’t going to abandon their cell phones. Besides using them to consume media content such as music as well as spoken word podcasts, they are also still used for phone calls, texting, and accessing websites and various apps. They’re not going away, though users might hang on to their existing devices longer.

 

[gr8oldies]

You know, radio could come back but for a very different (and negative) reason: those tariffs President Trump announced on Tuesday. Yes, it's true that radios, like computers, are assembled in places outside of the U.S. However, radios are still cheaper than computers and cell phones and if the prices of the latter go high enough, people just might abandon them and return to radio.

As I said, I think this is a very negative reason to go back to radio but I do know people who can barely afford to keep up with their computer, satellite and cable connections... And, of course, those tariffs, if they do enough damage, might be very short-lived...

We did buy new phones earlier than we would have anticipating tariffs. Having said that, people are going to be, and are already, rethinking the number of subscriptions they are paying for.

 

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

NAB petitions FCC to eliminate broadcast ownership rule

The NAB has sent a letter to the FCC urging the agency to eliminate federal ownership caps for radio and TV station owners.

thedesk.net

Here's one that's going to be considered and in talks with the FCC. The proposal to lift ownership caps.

In a letter sent to the Secretary of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) this week, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) wrote that the agency’s continued use of a formula to determine on a quadrennial basis whether the federal ownership restrictions are still necessary is largely outdated in the era of “Big Tech.”

The NAB has long complained that broadcasters like Nexstar, Sinclair, TEGNA, Gray Media, iHeart Media and Audacy are restricted from consolidating and scaling their operations because the FCC limits how many licensed TV and radio stations one company may directly own at a given time.

Presently, broadcasters are prohibited from owning local TV stations that reach more than 39 percent of the American viewing audience, and cannot own more than two “top four” stations in a given market without a waiver. Similar restrictions are imposed on the radio broadcasting industry.

 

[gr8oldies]

NAB petitions FCC to eliminate broadcast ownership rule

The NAB has sent a letter to the FCC urging the agency to eliminate federal ownership caps for radio and TV station owners.

thedesk.net

Here's one that's going to be considered and in talks with the FCC. The proposal to lift ownership caps.

Were this to come to pass, who has money to buy out all their competition?

 

[Theater of My Mind]

Here's one that's going to be considered and in talks with the FCC. The proposal to lift ownership caps.

This organization sounds like the same old song played over and over again, year after year. Seems appropriate.

 

[TheBigA]

I can point you to the Podcast charts. A program where a host or group of people talk about interesting things their audience can relate to, taking occasional breaks to talk about their sponsors while spending hours not playing a single song? It sounds oddly familiar...though not entirely identical to something we used to call a "morning show."

The difference is a podcast is on demand. That's the driving force here. People want to listen to something on their own schedule instead of in real time. There are thousands of broadcast radio stations that do the same thing as podcasts. Most of them turn their personality shows into podcasts. So none of this is new. People are less interested in linear, real time content. That also means TV. Everything you're saying about radio could also be applied to broadcast TV.

The fact is there's nothing a broadcast station can do that will instantly cause people to throw away their digital devices and seek out transistor radios and return to the 80s.

 

[Miss Tuned]

I won a radio contest the other day. Theatre tickets, on a local DAB station called In Demand Decades. I was going to go to the show anyway, so I thought I'd save myself £50. I texted in, and five minutes later, the station was calling me and telling me I'd won. They had at least three warm bodies in the building - a live presenter on Dance/CHR In Demand Radio, a second live presenter on the classic hits sister station, In Demand Decades, and an admin person calling people. It was like something from 20 years ago.

The fact that I texted in and immediately won suggests that there are probably more people in the building than listening to the programming.

 

[davideduardo]

The difference is a podcast is on demand. That's the driving force here. People want to listen to something on their own schedule instead of in real time.

And even audio podcasts are suffering against video podcasts. The video ones can be listened to, even in the car, but watched when possible. Proprietary statistics show that audio-only is not the way to go with podcasts.

 

[TheBigA]

And even audio podcasts are suffering against video podcasts. The video ones can be listened to, even in the car, but watched when possible. Proprietary statistics show that audio-only is not the way to go with podcasts.

I agree and that's another strike against radio stations that only focus on audio. Adding video isn't more expensive and improves usability in social media, which can provide another revenue stream.

 

[Kent]

You know, radio could come back but for a very different (and negative) reason: those tariffs President Trump announced on Tuesday. Yes, it's true that radios, like computers, are assembled in places outside of the U.S. However, radios are still cheaper than computers and cell phones and if the prices of the latter go high enough, people just might abandon them and return to radio.

Won't happen. The smartphone has all but become a necessity, and the price point has already hit "teacher salary range." iPhone and premium Android sales might drop, but you can already find cheap smartphones for less than $300. People might not upgrade as often, but they'll resort to the budget phones, which will still be cheap enough after tariffs, before they give up their smartphones altogether. That ship sailed.

This organization sounds like the same old song played over and over again, year after year. Seems appropriate.

The NAB has advocated fewer ownership restrictions for a long time. While it will occasionally take up for the rank-and-file, it's an owners' lobbying group, and it's always going to look after their interests first. When the owners tell the NAB to jump, it's only going to ask how high.

 

[bobdavcav]

I'm sorry, but can I just vent? I really don't understand why the NAB pushes for more and more consolidation year after year after year. All of the major radio companies have filed for bankruptcy in the last 10 years. Yes, all of them. Cumulus, iHeart, Audacy, and Alpha. While Beasley hasn't filed for bankruptcy, they are not in great shape financially either. All we ever hear about out of those companies is massive layoffs. Meanwhile, companies such as Hubbard, Midwest, Connoisseur, Lotus, Saga, and Hubbard hold their own with local personalities. Of those, we've only heard about layoffs of a similar size to what Audacy just went through at Hubbard once, and that was in 2020. That's the only time for Hubbard, and we've never heard about cuts at any of the other companies I just brought up. If the cuts did come down, we either don't hear about it as being a budget cut, or it's one or two names, not 10% of the company. So, how can these companies expect to get bigger if they can't manage effectively what they already have?

 

[TheBigA]

Meanwhile, companies such as Hubbard, Midwest, Connoisseur, Lotus, Saga, and Hubbard hold their own with local personalities. Of those, we've only heard about layoffs of a similar size to what Audacy just went through at Hubbard once, and that was in 2020.

That's what the OP in this thread says. But the fact is that all of the big companies you name have lots of local personalities. Even after all the staff layoffs, Audacy still is doing local news in a lot of markets, still has local personalities at a lot of their stations, and is still running like it's the 1980s. The only thing the bankruptcies has done is drive down the sale prices of stations. People complained that the prices in the 90s were too high. Not a problem anymore. Those companies paid too much and got into too much debt. That's why they went bankrupt. Not because they were badly run companies. The bankruptcies got rid of those CEOs. All of those big companies understand the business as it exists now. Somebody has to own these stations, and they are now able to do multi-platform radio, which is what has to be done for radio to survive.

 

[Kent]

That's what the OP in this thread says. But the fact is that all of the big companies you name have lots of local personalities. Even after all the staff layoffs, Audacy still is doing local news in a lot of markets, still has local personalities at a lot of their stations, and is still running like it's the 1980s. The only thing the bankruptcies has done is drive down the sale prices of stations. People complained that the prices in the 90s were too high. Not a problem anymore. Those companies paid too much and got into too much debt. That's why they went bankrupt. Not because they were badly run companies. The bankruptcies got rid of those CEOs. All of those big companies understand the business as it exists now. Somebody has to own these stations, and they are now able to do multi-platform radio, which is what has to be done for radio to survive.

Also, Saga, at least after hours, has regional, if not national, playlists for some formats. Not sure if that's all of them, but it certainly does for some. I notice more jockless and syndicated programming on its stations, too. It's a good company, but it's still a business. While it hasn't had the massive bloodlettings other companies have had, it has gone through a couple rounds of cuts since COVID. A friend and former co-worker was one of the post-COVID cuts at Saga. Hubbard has also continued to make cuts here and there. I know of at least two on-air personalities in St. Louis who have been cut in the last year to year and-a-half, and I understand other behind-the-scenes positions were also cut.

I realize he was venting. I get that it's frustrating for all of us who have, or had, a passion for the industry and/or the medium. The NAB represents the owners, and I've worked for a handful. No two were alike on much, but none were pro-labor, pro-minimum wage, pro-regulation, or pro-workers' rights. Some were truly good civil servants who believed strongly in radio as a public service, but even those good guys didn't want a union, didn't want mandatory paid sick leave, and didn't dole out raises on a whim.

 

[b-turner]

And therein is the excuse for more consolidation. If they could be just a bit bigger they can spread those expenses over more stations and be in better shape financially.