Boycotting Clear Channel is too little, too late

[Anyacat]

and black is white and up is down and consolidation is bery bery good for radio
all studies that show that consolidation has been bad for radio are wrong

 

[SaltyDog]

and black is white and up is down and consolidation is bery bery good for radio
all studies that show that consolidation has been bad for radio are wrong

Any such "study" to determine if consolidation was "good" or "bad" would surely do nothing but reinforce the opinions of the person or group funding the study.

Regardless of what you think, your options are to approach your job with optimism and navigate the landscape as it is, or complain that it's not as you wish it to be and get out of the business. I just hope people realize it's not a good idea to stay in the business and get an ulcer worrying about the state of radio.

 

[Anyacat]

and black is white and up is down and consolidation is bery bery good for radio
all studies that show that consolidation has been bad for radio are wrong

Any such "study" to determine if consolidation was "good" or "bad" would surely do nothing but reinforce the opinions of the person or group funding the study.

Regardless of what you think, your options are to approach your job with optimism and navigate the landscape as it is, or complain that it's not as you wish it to be and get out of the business. I just hope people realize it's not a good idea to stay in the business and get an ulcer worrying about the state of radio.

Listeners should also jump ship because there is less for them and, as Mr. E has noted, they are better off with satellite--now how's that or marketing?

 

[SaltyDog]

Listeners should also jump ship because there is less for them and, as Mr. E has noted, they are better off with satellite

Broadcast TV has coexisted with Satellite TV for a lot longer than Radio has been coexisting with Satellite Radio. Satellite Radio has a long way to go before it catches up with Satellite TV.

 

[lash]

Next Monday in Nashville, I will be speaking against the bastards of Big Media in a forum with the FCC commissioners. They want more? They don't deserve more. Not only have they destroyed themselves, they are now destroying the radio business from the inside out. I've been doing this for 30 years, and the industry has never been worse.

Its been a long experiment gone wrong, run by mad scientists who should have not been allowed to start in 1996.

How can you guys say that Clear Channel has made radio better. My god!

 

[Anyacat]

Thank you Lash, I was honestly beginning to believe I was the only person concerned by the number of people who have stopped listening to radio.

 

[gr8oldies]

You guys really think that the old mom and pop model of radio (4 A/C stations, a couple of AORs, a handful of country and maybe an AOR) would keep people from buying iPods and satellite radio? You keep saying there was all this "diversity" before 1996, but there sure wasn't an all-polka station in any market I lived in.

As far as news coverage, the shooting or the car accident on Saturday night was the shooting or the car accident on all of the stations; no Republican or Democrqatic take on it.

I'm not convinced that those of you who want news and public affairs foisted on music stations in drive times would actually listen to it..or that you all really care about the return of Swap Shop to distant suburban markets. It's really about "goverenment, make the big bad radio company hire me as a DJ". Which is OK, but let's be honest about it.

 

[SaltyDog]

Next Monday in Nashville, I will be speaking against the bastards of Big Media in a forum with the FCC commissioners.

They will smile politely and take notes. I hope you don't think anythings hangs in the balance on the strength of your speech.

 

[SaltyDog]

Thank you Lash, I was honestly beginning to believe I was the only person concerned by the number of people who have stopped listening to radio.

The impression I get is that you are concerned that some people still are.

 

[lash]

Then why is it working? Why can I got into a market, buy a dark AM station, and return it to its former glory? We've done it now three times in three years.

If you program, and be local, and I mean ALL the local elements, listeners come running in droves. And advertisers as well.

While the FCC may be pushed by the big companies and the NAB. They aren't stupid! They know this has been a miserable failure.

There is nothing more boring then listening to an IPOD. Anyone with half a brain knows that. Satt. radio is a different story and we can compete by going local, local, and local.

Proudly returning radio, especially AM radio to its former music glory! And HD is next!

 

[SaltyDog]

Then why is it working? Why can I got into a market, buy a dark AM station, and return it to its former glory? We've done it now three times in three years.

Good for you. I'm pleased to hear it. Any thoughts on upping the bets and buying a big stick in a major market? Investors could be attracted to a winning formula with a management team that proves it works.

Count me as a guy who believes that in a business where there are too many sticks, local should work. I just don't think having a hard on for Clear Channel adds to the business.

 

[lash]

After the first of the year, I'm presenting our bank a plan for a line of credit to allow us to do several things. Purchase several smaller market AM's OR go after a major market stick.

I actually believe that FM radio would die before AM. With AM appealing to an older demo, reluctant to change or purchase I-Pods, Satt. Radio, or involve themselves to much listening online.

I also feel if enough broadcasters lead the charge to more local, and a return to personality radio, that we would be able to compete once again.

I know there are more broadcasters that feel this way. I know there are more folks who purchase and resurrect distressed AM signals. Just don't hear from them very often.

 

[dbdigital]

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.

I suppose we can close our eyes while driving past a Clear Channel billboard but that might prove dangerous. Really, unless you're GM or McDonalds threatening to pull ad dollars from them there is very little anyone can do to hurt CC directly.

However, in a way, something has been done to Clear Channel and the other conglomerates. Sometime ago, CC sent a letter to Chairman Martin arguing for a relaxation of the ownership caps. But when the matter was put up for public comment the response was overwhelming (about 3 million responders) and overwhelmingly against relaxing the caps. The public had spoken and Congress will no doubt act accordingly when this issue comes before them, if it even sees the light of day.

So, if nothing else, Clear Channel will probably be denied one of its objectives: buying more stations in the top rated markets.

db

 

[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.

I suppose we can close our eyes while driving past a Clear Channel billboard but that might prove dangerous. Really, unless you're GM or McDonalds threatening to pull ad dollars from them there is very little anyone can do to hurt CC directly.

However, in a way, something has been done to Clear Channel and the other conglomerates. Sometime ago, CC sent a letter to Chairman Martin arguing for a relaxation of the ownership caps. But when the matter was put up for public comment the response was overwhelming (about 3 million responders) and overwhelmingly against relaxing the caps. The public had spoken and Congress will no doubt act accordingly when this issue comes before them, if it even sees the light of day.

So, if nothing else, Clear Channel will probably be denied one of its objectives: buying more stations in the top rated markets.

db

In 2003, the FCC did exactly what Clear Channel and other large corporations wanted: They relaxed (all but eliminated) ownerships rules. However, three million people wrote to their Congressmen, more than wrote about the Iraq invasion, and Congress killed the changes. In June, Clear Channel's efforts got a boost when 26 representatives wrote a letter to the FCC urging the FCC to ease (or eliminate) ownership rules so that Clear Channel could purchase four more stations in major markets. The letter (signed by Fred Upton of Michigan and others) echoed Clear Channel's contention that the public good cannot be properly served unless large corporations owned at least 12 stations in major markets. The point being that in times of emergencies, no one but Clear Channel can be counted on to get the news out. In August, as you know, Clear Channel announced its intention to offload less profitable small stations--serving people who, apparently, don't need Clear Channel in times of emergencies. In 2003, then Chairman Michael Powell claimed he had e-mails from the public, but he never said what was in the e-mail nor do we know if they even existed. He also refused to hold public hearings. This time around, Chairman Martin is holding hearings, at which people have expressed their displeasure at the idea that large corporations should be allowed to own even more stations (and about consolidation in general). However, Chairman Martin is on record as being pro-consolidation and is not bound to listen to the public when he determines how their airwaves should be used. Do not count on Congress to ride to the rescue a second time.

 

[dbdigital]

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.

I suppose we can close our eyes while driving past a Clear Channel billboard but that might prove dangerous. Really, unless you're GM or McDonalds threatening to pull ad dollars from them there is very little anyone can do to hurt CC directly.

However, in a way, something has been done to Clear Channel and the other conglomerates. Sometime ago, CC sent a letter to Chairman Martin arguing for a relaxation of the ownership caps. But when the matter was put up for public comment the response was overwhelming (about 3 million responders) and overwhelmingly against relaxing the caps. The public had spoken and Congress will no doubt act accordingly when this issue comes before them, if it even sees the light of day.

So, if nothing else, Clear Channel will probably be denied one of its objectives: buying more stations in the top rated markets.

db

In 2003, the FCC did exactly what Clear Channel and other large corporations wanted: They relaxed (all but eliminated) ownerships rules. However, three million people wrote to their Congressmen, more than wrote about the Iraq invasion, and Congress killed the changes. In June, Clear Channel's efforts got a boost when 26 representatives wrote a letter to the FCC urging the FCC to ease (or eliminate) ownership rules so that Clear Channel could purchase four more stations in major markets. The letter (signed by Fred Upton of Michigan and others) echoed Clear Channel's contention that the public good cannot be properly served unless large corporations owned at least 12 stations in major markets. The point being that in times of emergencies, no one but Clear Channel can be counted on to get the news out. In August, as you know, Clear Channel announced its intention to offload less profitable small stations--serving people who, apparently, don't need Clear Channel in times of emergencies. In 2003, then Chairman Michael Powell claimed he had e-mails from the public, but he never said what was in the e-mail nor do we know if they even existed. He also refused to hold public hearings. This time around, Chairman Martin is holding hearings, at which people have expressed their displeasure at the idea that large corporations should be allowed to own even more stations (and about consolidation in general). However, Chairman Martin is on record as being pro-consolidation and is not bound to listen to the public when he determines how their airwaves should be used. Do not count on Congress to ride to the rescue a second time.

But keep in mind that Martin is a Republican appointee while Congress is now controlled by the Democrats. That coupled with the FCC's own Powell-suppressed report on media consolidation, which if you recall was a huge embarrassment for Martin and a scandal for the agency, makes this issue DOA. The Dems, as a whole, are not in favor of relaxing media ownership caps.

db

 

[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.

I suppose we can close our eyes while driving past a Clear Channel billboard but that might prove dangerous. Really, unless you're GM or McDonalds threatening to pull ad dollars from them there is very little anyone can do to hurt CC directly.

However, in a way, something has been done to Clear Channel and the other conglomerates. Sometime ago, CC sent a letter to Chairman Martin arguing for a relaxation of the ownership caps. But when the matter was put up for public comment the response was overwhelming (about 3 million responders) and overwhelmingly against relaxing the caps. The public had spoken and Congress will no doubt act accordingly when this issue comes before them, if it even sees the light of day.

So, if nothing else, Clear Channel will probably be denied one of its objectives: buying more stations in the top rated markets.

db

In 2003, the FCC did exactly what Clear Channel and other large corporations wanted: They relaxed (all but eliminated) ownerships rules. However, three million people wrote to their Congressmen, more than wrote about the Iraq invasion, and Congress killed the changes. In June, Clear Channel's efforts got a boost when 26 representatives wrote a letter to the FCC urging the FCC to ease (or eliminate) ownership rules so that Clear Channel could purchase four more stations in major markets. The letter (signed by Fred Upton of Michigan and others) echoed Clear Channel's contention that the public good cannot be properly served unless large corporations owned at least 12 stations in major markets. The point being that in times of emergencies, no one but Clear Channel can be counted on to get the news out. In August, as you know, Clear Channel announced its intention to offload less profitable small stations--serving people who, apparently, don't need Clear Channel in times of emergencies. In 2003, then Chairman Michael Powell claimed he had e-mails from the public, but he never said what was in the e-mail nor do we know if they even existed. He also refused to hold public hearings. This time around, Chairman Martin is holding hearings, at which people have expressed their displeasure at the idea that large corporations should be allowed to own even more stations (and about consolidation in general). However, Chairman Martin is on record as being pro-consolidation and is not bound to listen to the public when he determines how their airwaves should be used. Do not count on Congress to ride to the rescue a second time.

But keep in mind that Martin is a Republican appointee while Congress is now controlled by the Democrats. That coupled with the FCC's own Powell-suppressed report on media consolidation, which if you recall was a huge embarrassment for Martin and a scandal for the agency, makes this issue DOA. The Dems, as a whole, are not in favor of relaxing media ownership caps.

db

Possibly, although both Republicans and Democrats signed the letter to the FCC promoting further relaxation of the ownership rules. I think which so much on the Congressional plate, Martin could do what Powell did and it could pass because Congress may not have the time or interest this time around. It is very difficult to predict how people will react. Martin claimed no knowledge of the report much less that it was suppressed--which I find difficult to believe. Clear Channel has spent a great deal of money to get the rules relaxed--and the company does have close ties with Bush. So the issue may have some life in it yet.

 

[dbdigital]

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.

I suppose we can close our eyes while driving past a Clear Channel billboard but that might prove dangerous. Really, unless you're GM or McDonalds threatening to pull ad dollars from them there is very little anyone can do to hurt CC directly.

However, in a way, something has been done to Clear Channel and the other conglomerates. Sometime ago, CC sent a letter to Chairman Martin arguing for a relaxation of the ownership caps. But when the matter was put up for public comment the response was overwhelming (about 3 million responders) and overwhelmingly against relaxing the caps. The public had spoken and Congress will no doubt act accordingly when this issue comes before them, if it even sees the light of day.

So, if nothing else, Clear Channel will probably be denied one of its objectives: buying more stations in the top rated markets.

db

In 2003, the FCC did exactly what Clear Channel and other large corporations wanted: They relaxed (all but eliminated) ownerships rules. However, three million people wrote to their Congressmen, more than wrote about the Iraq invasion, and Congress killed the changes. In June, Clear Channel's efforts got a boost when 26 representatives wrote a letter to the FCC urging the FCC to ease (or eliminate) ownership rules so that Clear Channel could purchase four more stations in major markets. The letter (signed by Fred Upton of Michigan and others) echoed Clear Channel's contention that the public good cannot be properly served unless large corporations owned at least 12 stations in major markets. The point being that in times of emergencies, no one but Clear Channel can be counted on to get the news out. In August, as you know, Clear Channel announced its intention to offload less profitable small stations--serving people who, apparently, don't need Clear Channel in times of emergencies. In 2003, then Chairman Michael Powell claimed he had e-mails from the public, but he never said what was in the e-mail nor do we know if they even existed. He also refused to hold public hearings. This time around, Chairman Martin is holding hearings, at which people have expressed their displeasure at the idea that large corporations should be allowed to own even more stations (and about consolidation in general). However, Chairman Martin is on record as being pro-consolidation and is not bound to listen to the public when he determines how their airwaves should be used. Do not count on Congress to ride to the rescue a second time.

But keep in mind that Martin is a Republican appointee while Congress is now controlled by the Democrats. That coupled with the FCC's own Powell-suppressed report on media consolidation, which if you recall was a huge embarrassment for Martin and a scandal for the agency, makes this issue DOA. The Dems, as a whole, are not in favor of relaxing media ownership caps.

db

Possibly, although both Republicans and Democrats signed the letter to the FCC promoting further relaxation of the ownership rules. I think which so much on the Congressional plate, Martin could do what Powell did and it could pass because Congress may not have the time or interest this time around. It is very difficult to predict how people will react. Martin claimed no knowledge of the report much less that it was suppressed--which I find difficult to believe. Clear Channel has spent a great deal of money to get the rules relaxed--and the company does have close ties with Bush. So the issue may have some life in it yet.

On a similar note, this article is a must-read:

http://www.radioandrecords.com/radi...article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003494749

There are certain apologists regularly contributing to this board who will tell you that media consolidation is a good thing, resulting in more, not less formats and that the media conglomerates own relatively few stations compared to the total number of stations in the U.S and, therefore, are being unfairly vilified. The following stats quoted from the above article plainly show those arguments to be half-truths, spin and lies:

"•The top four radio station owners have almost half of the listeners and the top ten owners have almost two-thirds of listeners.

•The “localness” of radio ownership -- ownership by individuals living in the community -- has declined between 1975 and 2005 by almost one-third.

•Just fifteen formats make up three-quarters of all commercial programming. Moreover, radio formats with different names can overlap up to 80% in terms of the songs played on them.

•Almost exclusively, smaller station groups provide niche musical formats like classical, jazz, Americana, bluegrass, new rock and folk, where they exist.

•Across 155 markets, radio listenership has declined over the past fourteen years, a 22% drop since its peak in 1989. The consolidation allowed by the Telecom Act has failed to reverse this trend."

db

 

[LeChat]

It seems to me that the original poster has tried to make the same points, only to be shouted down by those who disagree. One cannot close one's eyes to a Clear Channel billboard (as was snidely suggested), but one can choose to avoid a Clear Channel radio station, as difficult as that may seem. I think that's all the original poster suggested. I think it's fairly obvious to all that consolidation has not been good for radio, and I fail to understand how more consolidation can be anything but pure disaster.

 

[lash]

These last few posts have been very good, no matter what side of the fence your on. I invite you all to try and locate online what is said on Monday during the FCC town meeting in Nashville regarding this issue. Next year is going to be an interesting election year, and this topic will surely heat up at some point.

 

[gr8oldies]

I don't see it become a huge election issue...I just don't see the average person istening to the radio voting based on "I promise to take your local radio stations away from company A and give them to company B". I'll wager that those who are at the meeting will be talking about mandationg "fairness", and getting bar bands on the radio