Boycotting Clear Channel is too little, too late

[Anyacat]

The trimming of Clear Channel changes nothing; the company remains the single largest owner, by a wide margin, of radio stations in the United States, and will benefit from the most advertising dollars, regardless of what they, who they fire or down what dark alley they talk radio and the Internet (all the better to be mugged). There is nothing anyone can do to stop them. Clear Channel is like a force of nature, blowing down everything before it and leaving wreckage in its wake. I know all this and yet I boycott all Clear Channel products. Because I don't care if it is pointless to protest, the protest is what is important and I do not expect the Clear Channel weasels on this board to have any inkling about what is wrong with Clear Channel. To hear them tell it, all owners were impoverished creatures; creeping along the gutters of life, picking up scraps and begging for food--until Clear Channel came along and showed them the holy grail of advertising revenue. I honestly believe that the Clear Channel weasels do not believe what they write here--but they are compelled, for whatever reason, to write their defense of a company that would burn them alive if it meant a fraction of a percentage of advertising revenue increase. There is nothing we can do to save what remains of a one proud medium, there is nothing we can do to stop Clear Channel as it reforms itself into a trimmer version of the media munching monster it is and there is nothing we can do to enlighten those who have gone to the dark side. But, as I said, I don't have to give Clear Channel a penny of my money and I can make my displeasure known by writing to advertisers who appear on Clear Channel stations (all the while getting my music from something other than radio).

Clear Channel weasels: We know you are loyal to your masters, but don't feel compelled to spew the party line here. We have all read the endlessly similar explanations and we laud you for your tenacity. But you will never convince me that it is somehow wrong to have newscasts on all stations--even if the information is similar. I mean, you don't seem to mind cookie cutter programming that is Clear Channel's hallmark. It doesn't bother you that one Clear Channel station is almost indistinguishable from another. So, why do you get all hot and bothered in there are two AC or R&B or Top 40 or (gasp gasp heaven forbid) and Oldies Station in one market?

I guess what offends me most is your utter contempt for the audience--which, for the most part, has gotten what it deserves because it does not leave radio in droves. A certain number of people will seek new technologies and delivery systems because they like what is new--but some people end up with XM or on the Internet because you drove them there. That's right, every time you spit in the public eye, one more person peels off and goes elsewhere. It may never be enough to make a dent in the all important advertising revenue--but at the end of the day when you put yourself to bed on your 1,000 thread count Porthault sheets, know that at least half of the people who abandoned terrestrial radio, did so because you drove them to it and when you get your bloodstained claws into satellite and/or the Internet, and do the same thing, some one else will come along with something better and that same audience that you view with such distain will go elsewhere.

And finally, there is a cold comfort in knowing that Clear Channel has no loyalty to any of its employees and that at some point they will kick you to the curb with the same disinterest that they off-loaded talented on-air personalities and programmers, not to mention the audience they once entertained.

Boycott Clear Channel. It's pointless, but do it anyway.

 

[davideduardo]

Clear Channel weasels: We know you are loyal to your masters, but don't feel compelled to spew the party line here. We have all read the endlessly similar explanations and we laud you for your tenacity. But you will never convince me that it is somehow wrong to have newscasts on all stations--even if the information is similar.

Clear Channel had nothing to do with the reduction of news on music stations. That had to do, at the end, with deregulation in the early 80's where renewal expectations were no longer based on percentages of news, PA and Other programming. During the 60's and 70's, stations with music formats dumped a lot of the news commitments in overnights and the PA and Other material early Sunday morning or late Sunday night to avoid having to put it in regular music programming.

Clear Channel did not exist until the mid-70's when they bought a failing FM and then a failing clear channel AM (thus the name) and learned that upping the news and talk content on AMs worked and applied the formula to stations like KTOK in Oklahoma and beyond. Yet music stations, especially Beautiful Music ones in the 60's and 70's and into the early 80's were doing everything they could to get the talk (news and such) out of 6 AM to Midnight... none owned by Clear, by the way.

I had a bunch of music stations in the mid to late 60's and none of them had any news. I had one news and talk and drama station, and we cross promoted. Each station was intended for a different mood and use. Nobody ever complained that the Top 40 station had no news, but they would have if I had added it.

I mean, you don't seem to mind cookie cutter programming that is Clear Channel's hallmark. It doesn't bother you that one Clear Channel station is almost indistinguishable from another. So, why do you get all hot and bothered in there are two AC or R&B or Top 40 or (gasp gasp heaven forbid) and Oldies Station in one market?

What is "cookie cutter" about applying the techniques that work at one AC to another? Do local music research, but apply the success of promotions and such in each different market. Heck, Storz, McLendon, Burden, Doubleday, Metromedia and many others did the same thing in the 50's! WDGY, WQAM, WTIX, WHB, KOWH, etc. (all Storz) were in an identical format, Top 40. Same with KTSA, KELP, KILT, KLIF, etc., the McLendon Top 40's. America has similar tastes nationally in each music genre, so stations in one format are going to sond very similar across the country.

Again, Clear Channel is not at fault when Black Eyed Peas is equally liked in Seattle and Sacramento and Salt Lake and Springfield and Sarasota.

Back in the 30's and 40's, everyone liked the Lone Ranger and Edgar Bergen & Charlie McCarthey in every market, and the few stations that existed ran essentially the same formats of entertainment form New York or LA or Chicago or Detroit.

I guess what offends me most is your utter contempt for the audience--which, for the most part, has gotten what it deserves because it does not leave radio in droves. A certain number of people will seek new technologies and delivery systems because they like what is new--but some people end up with XM or on the Internet because you drove them there. That's right, every time you spit in the public eye, one more person peels off and goes elsewhere. It may never be enough to make a dent in the all important advertising revenue--but at the end of the day when you put yourself to bed on your 1,000 thread count Porthault sheets, know that at least half of the people who abandoned terrestrial radio, did so because you drove them to it and when you get your bloodstained claws into satellite and/or the Internet, and do the same thing, some one else will come along with something better and that same audience that you view with such distain will go elsewhere.

Most people who leave radio do so because radio can not viably offer certain formats... like oldies... or smooth jazz in Fargo... or reggae in Duluth or salsa in LA. So those who find certain formats unavailable on terrestrial radio now have alternatives. That is super... it means everyone is happy.

And finally, there is a cold comfort in knowing that Clear Channel has no loyalty to any of its employees and that at some point they will kick you to the curb with the same disinterest that they off-loaded talented on-air personalities and programmers, not to mention the audience they once entertained.

Boycott Clear Channel. It's pointless, but do it anyway.
[/quote]

 

[PTBoardOp94]

Boycott Clear Channel. It's pointless, but do it anyway.

Wow. I've never seen better logic.

"You should boycott canned peas because I think frozen peas are better."

What single group is Clear Channel ignoring? Maybe you could make a pitch to that group that they should boycott Clear Channel. Since they don't have news, maybe you could get the farmers to raise up and demand Derry Brownfield four times a day. Maybe you could get sexagenarians who miss their good time oldies to rise up also. But guess what! Since CC is drawing out of Boise, they won't care about the farmers there. And since the oldies format isn't as profitable as it was ten years ago, CC still won't care.

CC has a business plan, and they are following it precisely. You're right -- any group that would want to boycott Clear Channel is one that CC decided they weren't going to chase. They may regret it in ten years when today's teens are 25, but for the moment it seems to be working*

* in the top 100 markets

 

[Anyacat]

Thank you David, for taking the time to reply, although it is your stock reply and we all know how much you believe radio has improved under Clear Channel. We understand and appreciate your loyalty to your masters.

 

[Anyacat]

Boycott Clear Channel. It's pointless, but do it anyway.

Wow. I've never seen better logic.

"You should boycott canned peas because I think frozen peas are better."

What single group is Clear Channel ignoring? Maybe you could make a pitch to that group that they should boycott Clear Channel. Since they don't have news, maybe you could get the farmers to raise up and demand Derry Brownfield four times a day. Maybe you could get sexagenarians who miss their good time oldies to rise up also. But guess what! Since CC is drawing out of Boise, they won't care about the farmers there. And since the oldies format isn't as profitable as it was ten years ago, CC still won't care.

CC has a business plan, and they are following it precisely. You're right -- any group that would want to boycott Clear Channel is one that CC decided they weren't going to chase. They may regret it in ten years when today's teens are 25, but for the moment it seems to be working*

* in the top 100 markets

I think the lesson might be that the Clear Channel model may not work in some communities where it fails to meet local needs and the loss of local listeners means a loss of advertising revenue. Clear Channel does not serve local communities because it is more cost effective to have someone located someone else give the news, for example--although I can see that news has a low priority with Clear Channel supports (which is kind of amusing when you consider that one of the main points that Clear Channel wants the FCC to consider is how important radio is during times of crisis and emergencies--and that's one of the reasons Clear Channel wants onerous ownership regulations eliminated). Anyway, Clear Channel is not the only big bully, but it is the biggest bully, so we pick on it--as if it cares. Clear Channel is not in the business of news or entertainment. It is in the business of creating a marketplace for its customers: Advertisers. Now, I would think that if ad revenue is the main focus, Clear Channel might want to keep its audience, if not grow it. But, as you noted, the audience is unimportant. There is nothing anyone can do to stop Clear Channel. We all know that. But I don't think we should pretend that it is the savior of radio when the we know that it isn't. Now, our previous poster claims that there is no such think as Clear Channel cookie cutter programming. But then, he always puts a spin on the Clear Channel ball--can't claim there is no voice tracking, so he notes that there is less--well, yeah, there are also fewer stations. In small areas, large corporations strip local newsrooms, and have no incentive to air competing points of view. You probably don't mind that one or two large corporations determine what kind of information you receive--you may actually like the idea of stifling competing points of views. But not everyone agrees with that.

 

[Anyacat]

Boycott Clear Channel. It's pointless, but do it anyway.

Wow. I've never seen better logic.

"You should boycott canned peas because I think frozen peas are better."

What single group is Clear Channel ignoring? Maybe you could make a pitch to that group that they should boycott Clear Channel. Since they don't have news, maybe you could get the farmers to raise up and demand Derry Brownfield four times a day. Maybe you could get sexagenarians who miss their good time oldies to rise up also. But guess what! Since CC is drawing out of Boise, they won't care about the farmers there. And since the oldies format isn't as profitable as it was ten years ago, CC still won't care.

CC has a business plan, and they are following it precisely. You're right -- any group that would want to boycott Clear Channel is one that CC decided they weren't going to chase. They may regret it in ten years when today's teens are 25, but for the moment it seems to be working*

* in the top 100 markets

I think the lesson might be that the Clear Channel model may not work in some communities where it fails to meet local needs and the loss of local listeners means a loss of advertising revenue. Clear Channel does not serve local communities because it is more cost effective to have someone located someone else give the news, for example--although I can see that news has a low priority with Clear Channel supports (which is kind of amusing when you consider that one of the main points that Clear Channel wants the FCC to consider is how important radio is during times of crisis and emergencies--and that's one of the reasons Clear Channel wants onerous ownership regulations eliminated). Anyway, Clear Channel is not the only big bully, but it is the biggest bully, so we pick on it--as if it cares. Clear Channel is not in the business of news or entertainment. It is in the business of creating a marketplace for its customers: Advertisers. Now, I would think that if ad revenue is the main focus, Clear Channel might want to keep its audience, if not grow it. But, as you noted, the audience is unimportant. There is nothing anyone can do to stop Clear Channel. We all know that. But I don't think we should pretend that it is the savior of radio when the we know that it isn't. Now, our previous poster claims that there is no such think as Clear Channel cookie cutter programming. But then, he always puts a spin on the Clear Channel ball--can't claim there is no voice tracking, so he notes that there is less--well, yeah, there are also fewer stations. In small areas, large corporations strip local newsrooms, and have no incentive to air competing points of view. You probably don't mind that one or two large corporations determine what kind of information you receive--you may actually like the idea of stifling competing points of views. But not everyone agrees with that. Some people even think a democracy requires the free flow of ideas and information. So yeah, it might be pointless to protest, but there is no reason not to protest. Think of it this way: The bad guys have you cornered and they are about to shoot you in the head. You can die while fawning all over them in the hopes they will change their minds. You can die silently. Or you can spit in their eyes. It makes no difference to the bad guys how you die, but it may make your dying a little more interesting for you.

 

[davideduardo]

Thank you David, for taking the time to reply, although it is your stock reply and we all know how much you believe radio has improved under Clear Channel. We understand and appreciate your loyalty to your masters.

I have no loyalty to Clear Channel. I do not work for them, and have never worked for them. I actually compete with them in most of our markets. I would imagine that my name is pinned on a dart board in several of their market offices, in fact.

However, the things that are being blamed on CCU are industry standards or conditions, most of which pre-date the creation of CCU in around 1974... and I want to separate those things that are "only about CCU" and those that have nothing to do with them.

 

[gr8oldies]

Yes, I remember the good old days...we all got paid like General Motors workers, and we had all these wonderful owners who..sniff...sold their house because they just wanted to do a great swap shop for the people. We all played nothing but local bar bands off 45s and the news was on every 10 minutes. And no one ever, EVER changed a format, in fact there was not one format change in the entire US from 1956 to 1996.

Who's "stifling viewpoints" anyway? This 1967 mentality that permeates here saying that we can actually force conservatives to listen to and agree with liberalls or vice versa is ridiculous. Unless we can ban the internet, cd players and the off button.

 

[LeChat]

Yes, I remember the good old days...we all got paid like General Motors workers, and we had all these wonderful owners who..sniff...sold their house because they just wanted to do a great swap shop for the people. We all played nothing but local bar bands off 45s and the news was on every 10 minutes. And no one ever, EVER changed a format, in fact there was not one format change in the entire US from 1956 to 1996.

Who's "stifling viewpoints" anyway? This 1967 mentality that permeates here saying that we can actually force conservatives to listen to and agree with liberalls or vice versa is ridiculous. Unless we can ban the internet, cd players and the off button.

I could be wrong, but I think the original poster is commenting on the massive changes that struck radio between 1996 and 2006. It has been an interesting decade for the public media. Clearly, some people prospered as the public airwaves became the private playground for a wealthy few large organizations. Having said all that, I like the idea of tilting at windmills and applaud those who know they will go down but prefer to go down fighting or spitting in the eye of the guy who's heel is on radio's throat, assuming someone can spit that far. Are we really talking about a change in format (or many changes in format) or something larger? Are those who are pro-consolidation blind to the problems because consolidation has made them wealthier than they were before? To paraphrase something I read somewhere on this board: Listeners are not looking for all calliope all the time. But they want to feel they are treated with respect, and I think that when radio professionals advise audiences to go elsewhere, they are being arrogant and short sighted. Personally, I accept the fact that radio as a medium of information, news and entertainment is dead and I believe that consolidation is what finally did it in. But as the man said, there are other places I can go to find what I used to get from radio. As for Clear Channel, it will continue and it will find another way to keep the ad revenue flowing. It's inevitable, like death and taxes.

 

[SaltyDog]

If there's anything that depresses me about working in radio, it's that it is so backward looking instead of forward looking. The theme of this thread, that Clear Channel is a monster gobbling everything in sight and that deregulation destroyed radio is by now a cliche.

I don't see it that way.

I worked for Clear Channel and hated the entire experience but somehow I don't blame Clear Channel at all. Clear Channel is like every other company, it's made up of people. Some are good and some are horrible.

Things change and the media landscape changed. Life goes on. Adapt or die. You're engaging in a pointless and meaningless boycott of Clear Channel? How sad.

 

[Anyacat]

Look forward young man to the further consolidation of radio and fewer jobs, with a greater emphasis on making the investors rich. Clear Channel will grow rich and prosper, nothing I do or say can change that. But they can do so without my pennies.

 

[kaufcom]

Look forward young man to the further consolidation of radio and fewer jobs, with a greater emphasis on making the investors rich. Clear Channel will grow rich and prosper, nothing I do or say can change that. But they can do so without my pennies.

Yes, like the investors that bought CC stock at $90

 

[davideduardo]

Yes, like the investors that bought CC stock at $90

Lots of stocks were higher than today... look at the NASDAQ at 40% of the pre-dotcom crash.

 

[MickJ]

Yes, like the investors that bought CC stock at $90

Lots of stocks were higher than today... look at the NASDAQ at 40% of the pre-dotcom crash.

I'm sure those who rode the stock down find that very consoling.

 

[SirRoxalot]

A Message to Stockholders

CC's answer to the investors that got in at the top of the market, and will be bought out when CC goes private:

"Hey, we treated you better than Enron..."

 

[davideduardo]

Re: A Message to Stockholders

CC's answer to the investors that got in at the top of the market, and will be bought out when CC goes private:

"Hey, we treated you better than Enron..."

Of course that is not true. CCU stock is, at present, trading at about the same percentage off its high as the entire NASDAQ composite, an index of approximately 3,000 companies (It never hit $90 a share... the peak was $85.49 in December of 1999).

The stock market is only partially driven by the performance of a company itself. CCU has provided earnings growth and sound value. The market has pretty much shunned all old media stocks, punishing the good with the bad, while things like XM and Sirius with no profits at all have soared (XM has recently been as low as $2.52 and as high as $42.75. Someone who bought exactly 2 years ago at $37 now has a stock that is worth $14.46... about the same decline as Clear.

 

[SirRoxalot]

So, What You're Saying Is....

So, David, you're saying that the rise of mega-broadcasters has fared about as well as the dot-bomb explosion from the '90s. In other words, once the days of acquisition and expansion - with other peoples money - came to and end, CC (and others) really haven't been able to deliver the results in revenue that they promised with their strategy of clustering & cost cutting.

I see CC as an example of a failed experiment. It remains to be seen what the overall damage to radio as a whole will turn out to be.

I'm sure that there are others who disagree with my view. So be it.

 

[MickJ]

Re: A Message to Stockholders

CCU stock is, at present, trading at about the same percentage off its high as the entire NASDAQ composite, an index of approximately 3,000 companies (It never hit $90 a share... the peak was $85.49 in December of 1999).

But CCU trades on the NYSE, not NASDAQ. You mean it was a NASDAQ stock in 1999? (I assume since you compared it to the NASDAQ composite.) I didn't know that.

The stock market is only partially driven by the performance of a company itself. CCU has provided earnings growth and sound value. The market has pretty much shunned all old media stocks, punishing the good with the bad, while things like XM and Sirius with no profits at all have soared (XM has recently been as low as $2.52 and as high as $42.75.

But of course. Investors value a stock based on its future profits, not its past. Right or wrong, investors think that satellites best days are ahead and terrestials are behind.

A good company in a bad sector is still bad.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

NASDAQ symbols have four letters.
NYSE symbols have 1-3 letters.

CCU was never on the NASDAQ, but it is possible that they used another ticker on the NASDAQ at one time. I have a record from 1996 saying that CCU was on the NYSE.

However, NASDAQ is one of the leading market indicators. If the NASDAQ index is down 3% in a given week, the other leading indicators will likely be down too.

 

[davideduardo]

Re: A Message to Stockholders

CCU stock is, at present, trading at about the same percentage off its high as the entire NASDAQ composite, an index of approximately 3,000 companies (It never hit $90 a share... the peak was $85.49 in December of 1999).

But CCU trades on the NYSE, not NASDAQ. You mean it was a NASDAQ stock in 1999? (I assume since you compared it to the NASDAQ composite.) I didn't know that.

I never said the CCU was traded ont he NASDAQ. I simply gave an example of how the composite of 3000 stocks on the NASDAQ was off in a very similar proportion to CCU (wherever it trades). In other words, judging companies entirely by the market is not a perfect metric. And, as an example, I metioned how XMSR has been up in the high 30's and is not around $14, and was down to the 3's very recently... the same busniess model all along, but a varying perception on the Street.