Boycotting Clear Channel is too little, too late

[davideduardo]

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:

•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.

I looked at the study at the Future of Music website. It is seriously, gravely flawed.

They list "Rock" as only two format when it is actually modern, alternative, classic rock, AOR, AAA, etc. Each is a separate, easily distinguishable format.
They list "Spanish" as a format. Spanish is a language. There are at least a dozen different Spanish language formats in the USA alone.
They list CHR as a format, and there are churbans, pop CHRs, rhythmic CHRs, alternative leaning CHRs, etc.
The have no categories for gold based AC, AC, hot AC, alternative AC, rhythmic AC, and even separate formats like Jack and such.

The study, done by an employee of the same organization, is interested in proving one thing: that new artists should have a break.

Never had, never will. Radio's job is not to make new artists, not to sell recorded music, not to introduce new genres. It is to give listeners what they want to hear, and to sell ads to support that effort.

 

[lash]

Dave, with all due respect, I don't know if I've ever known anyone as far in left field as you are about radio and programming.

Four or five legends of country music including George Jones, Porter Waggoner, Naomi Judd, and others will be testifying to the FCC. That's a little better than a bar band.

When I was asked by the FCC to speak on one of their forums, Senator John McCain was also there. It was a pleasure to talk to him about radio, as he leads the efforts. With him running for President, I believe that he will NOT drop the ball on this.

 

[kaufcom]

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.

The difference is that satellite TV had a better delivery system than broadcast TV (cable vs. over-the-air) In fact, the only reason that broadcast TV has survived this transformation is because of the "must-carry" rules. As of now over-the-air radio is a better transmission system than satellite or for that matter internet radio. You don't see any terrestrial broadcasters demanding "must-carry" on satellite radio.

 

[kaufcom]

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.

Any attempt at further moves to loosen the current ownership caps are DOA at the FCC and certainly in Congress. The question is will there be a move at re-regulation with Markey taking over the House Telecommunications Sub-Committee

 

[kaufcom]

I looked at the study at the Future of Music website. It is seriously, gravely flawed.

They list "Rock" as only two format when it is actually modern, alternative, classic rock, AOR, AAA, etc. Each is a separate, easily distinguishable format.
They list "Spanish" as a format. Spanish is a language. There are at least a dozen different Spanish language formats in the USA alone.
They list CHR as a format, and there are churbans, pop CHRs, rhythmic CHRs, alternative leaning CHRs, etc. The have no categories for gold based AC, AC, hot AC, alternative AC, rhythmic AC, and even separate formats like Jack and such. The study, done by an employee of the same organization, is interested in proving one thing: that new artists should have a break.

A 30 page well documented and researched critique of the radical consolidaton changes in the radio industry -- especially since 1998 -- which details how jobs have been lost, localism (especially news) has decreased, and how two or three owners now control the majority of business in most major markets and the best you can come up with is that they didn't micromanage the issue of format categories.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

Arbitron has about 50 formats listed.

12 Spanish formats have an 11.1 share nationwide in the summer 06 book.
3 Urban formats have 10.4
6 AC formats have 12.7
3 CHR variants have 11.6
3 Country variants have 9.3
4 Talk variants have 16.9
9 varieties of Oldies have 7.0

These 7 format groups account for 79 shares.

Straight AC earns 7.3
Urban has 5.4
CHR/POP is 5.8
Country has 8.7
Newstalk has 9.0
Oldies has 2.7
Mexican has 4.0

The "vanilla" varieties of the top 7 formats earn 42.9 shares.

Just because there "are" 50-some formats in this country doesn't necesarily make radio more diverse.

Information Source - shows the growth and decline of various formats over the last 8 years. Good find by Mr. Eduardo

 

[dbdigital]

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:

•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.

I looked at the study at the Future of Music website. It is seriously, gravely flawed.


The study, done by an employee of the same organization, is interested in proving one thing: that new artists should have a break.

...and as an employee of Univision you're certainly an unbiased source. More apologist spin.

db

 

[davideduardo]

I looked at the study at the Future of Music website. It is seriously, gravely flawed.


The study, done by an employee of the same organization, is interested in proving one thing: that new artists should have a break.

...and as an employee of Univision you're certainly an unbiased source. More apologist spin.

db

I don't file biased, incomplete, inaccurate studies with the FCC; the Coalition for Bad Musicians did.

I am particularly amused that they consider Spanish to be a "format." It shows how ignorant they are, and at the same time shows they do not represent ALL "undiscovered" musicians since they have no clue about Spanish langauge music... none at all. So they can not claim to represent anything but the intests of a few "artists" who are mad their local station does not play them...

 

[dbdigital]

I looked at the study at the Future of Music website. It is seriously, gravely flawed.


The study, done by an employee of the same organization, is interested in proving one thing: that new artists should have a break.

...and as an employee of Univision you're certainly an unbiased source. More apologist spin.

db

I don't file biased, incomplete, inaccurate studies with the FCC; the Coalition for Bad Musicians did.

I am particularly amused that they consider Spanish to be a "format." It shows how ignorant they are, and at the same time shows they do not represent ALL "undiscovered" musicians since they have no clue about Spanish langauge music... none at all. So they can not claim to represent anything but the intests of a few "artists" who are mad their local station does not play them...

However you want to mince up the formats into sub-genre, the Coalition's study goes hand-in-hand with the FCC's own Powell-suppressed report on media consolidation that since the passing of the Telcom Act of 1996, format choices of decreased, listenership is down, and fewer entities own radio stations.

db

 

[davideduardo]

However you want to mince up the formats into sub-genre, the Coalition's study goes hand-in-hand with the FCC's own Powell-suppressed report on media consolidation that since the passing of the Telcom Act of 1996, format choices of decreased, listenership is down, and fewer entities own radio stations.

db

Fewer entities own stations, but those that do are more profitable... such was not the case prior to 1996.

In the markets where I work, there are defintely more formats. You no longer have every owner trying to be successful with one of the big formats like AC, but, instead, clusters allow balancing between the demos of multiple stations.

Face it: nobody is going to do formats that don't work commercially, whether they be standards and oldies, or "real" jazz or bluegrass. These are simply not viable formats, and unless a commercial station can make money, it is not going to do any format. If a format is viable, someone will do it.

There is a lot of exaggeration about listening being down; in the sales demos it is only off very slightly. And there is no correlation or proof that any declines are consolidation relatied; they are, in fact, related to alternative uses of time like video games, more satellite and cable channels, etc.

As to sub-genres, I hardly think that Spanish language AC can be lumped with Mexican Regional, Salsa-based tropical and oldies and have anyone with two ounces of brain think that they are sub-genres when they are totally separate formats.

 

[gr8oldies]

Even if a parking garage company owned the country stations in my or your market,. they wouldn't be playing Porter Waggoner or George Jones, because they don't appeal to an audience that advertisers are interested in. That aspect of the business would not change, even if you could go back to 7/7/7 ownership rules (in fact, more than likely we'd go back to four A/C's per market.

 

[radionut925]

Even if a parking garage company owned the country stations in my or your market,. they wouldn't be playing Porter Waggoner or George Jones, because they don't appeal to an audience that advertisers are interested in. That aspect of the business would not change, even if you could go back to 7/7/7 ownership rules (in fact, more than likely we'd go back to four A/C's per market.

Yeah, right! It's all about the advertisers, not about the listeners. An attitude like that is part of the reason why terrestrial radio is in such sorry shape these days.

 

[davideduardo]

Yeah, right! It's all about the advertisers, not about the listeners. An attitude like that is part of the reason why terrestrial radio is in such sorry shape these days.

Man, get over it. "It" has always been about advertisers. No format can survive if it does not have advertiser acceptance or reach the kind of people that advertisers want.

Go did up some 50's and 60's "Broadcasting" magazines and read the articles. Formats were driven by advertiser acceptance. Nothing has changed.

Now, tho get advertisers, you have to have listeners. To get lots of advertisers, you need lots of listeners. These listeners must be in certain age ranges, but beyond that, the key to making money is simple; deliver lots of listeners in the right age groups. TO deliver listeners, you have to have good programming, and that is where the listener comes in.

But there are formats like standards and oldies in most markets and even country in some markets that will not attract advertisers, because the listeners are too few or too old.

 

[dbdigital]

However you want to mince up the formats into sub-genre, the Coalition's study goes hand-in-hand with the FCC's own Powell-suppressed report on media consolidation that since the passing of the Telcom Act of 1996, format choices of decreased, listenership is down, and fewer entities own radio stations.

db

Face it: nobody is going to do formats that don't work commercially, whether they be standards and oldies, or "real" jazz or bluegrass. These are simply not viable formats, and unless a commercial station can make money, it is not going to do any format. If a format is viable, someone will do it.

Bingo! And that's why radio stations are loathe to venture too far from the pool of established hits and limited formats. It isn't profitable enough. And I use the word "enough" because it is possible to make money from these formats, maybe not to the extent to satisfy a media giant and its shareholders but enough to satisfy a smaller company.

A case in point is Saul Levine bringing Country back to Los Angeles. The format may not have financially satisfied Emmis but obviously Levine sees green in Country. And in the process, he maintains a degree, however small, of format diversity in that city.

But unless radio stations get out of their format comfort zone and start getting more adventurous they stand to lose even more listeners than has already occurred. And, BTW, I don't buy that listenership has diminished simply because there are more distractions since most radio listening is done as background, while performing other activities. What I see happening is that people are discovering new music, such as Chill, Trance etc., and are not finding it on terrestrial radio causing them to hear it by other means. Of course, an ego-bloated, self-important programmer employed by a media conglomerate will dismiss this as ridiculous but so be it.

db

 

[gr8oldies]

Guys, you're all remembering a past with all kinds of obscure formats and stations playing all unknowns, all the time that simply didn't exist. I don't doubt that there are micro-niche tastes, but not enough that it's commercially viable, or that the folks who can't be satisfied with anything other than their own iPod could ever be satisfied with anything radio did. Send these stations all back to Mom and Pop or Proctor and Gamble and they'll still be doing what's profitable, all the while still competing with iPods, the internet, and everything else.

 

[radionut925]

Guys, you're all remembering a past with all kinds of obscure formats and stations playing all unknowns, all the time that simply didn't exist. I don't doubt that there are micro-niche tastes, but not enough that it's commercially viable, or that the folks who can't be satisfied with anything other than their own iPod could ever be satisfied with anything radio did. Send these stations all back to Mom and Pop or Proctor and Gamble and they'll still be doing what's profitable, all the while still competing with iPods, the internet, and everything else.

That's the point exactly. If terrestrial radio is to remain viable, it has to offer what iPod's, the internet, and satellite radio can't, which is live and local programming. And even that task can't be accomplished if stations are run almost entirely on a computer and/or satellite dish.

 

[KevinFodor]

I've been in the radio business now for almost 35 years. When I started my career, the typical formats
were:

Top 40, Album Rock, Full Service Adult, Country, Religious, Talk, Black, Beautiful Music and that was about it.

Today's formats include (and this is just off the top of my head):

CHR Mainstream, CHR Urban, A/C, Lite A/C, Hot A/C, Country, Classic Country, Americana, Classic Rock, Classic Rock "That Rocks", Classic Hits, Alternative Rock, Mainstream Rock, Christian CHR, Christian A/C, Urban Hip Hop, Urban A/C, Conservative Talk, Liberal Talk, All News Radio, Jammin' Oldies, 80's Hits, Oldies (still in a few markets), Adult Standards, Soft A/C, Religious, NPR, Spanish CHR, Spanish A/C, Hawaiian, Tropical...(and I know there's more I'm forgetting.) How can anyone say there's fewer choices in formats?

Do some of these formats share titles? Of course, common sense would say that would be so.

The greater formats came about from more stations coming on the dial from "docket 80/90", which made
everyone program to more "niche" markets.

I have no doubt as HD Radio comes on-line, there'll be more "niches" to occupy. More stations means more
programming choice. Some stations will be jukeboxes, others could be live. But it'll all depend on radio coming up with unique, interesting programming...manufacturers getting the radios in stores at a price the average person can afford, and radio doing its' part to promote the new choices. HD is at the stage right now that FM was at in 1968. So, no one should be surprised the whole thing hasn't been figured out yet.

What the FCC will do about media ownership only they know at this point. I have been both a supporter of and critic of certain things Clear Channel has done over the years. They've made their share of successes...
and their share of mistakes. Regardless of what the FCC decides, there will still be large companies running radio stations. How big? Can't say. That's the FCC's job.

For myself as a broadcaster, I don't fear computers, the internet or i-Pods. I think, if broadcasters are smart, we'll harness some of that activity to help us boost our own platforms.

But, the overall answer is not putting stations on the air with 10,000 song playlists (as XM and Sirius have)
to play to the 2 or 3% of radio listeners who think "radio sucks". And, though I have felt from the beginning there's a market for satcasting, the declining sales and lukewarm renewal rates for the current satgroup are evidence (though not proof) that the market they were seeking wasn't the size they though it was. Most listeners don't care. They want what they want when they want it. And, it's our job to give them what they want, when they want it. Playlist size can vary...but that's up to the operator's in individual markets to decide. And that what is done in the majority of cases today...whether radio "wannabes" want to believe it, or not.

The 10,000 song crowd? That's what your i-Pod is for. Go load it up.

I recognize some people will disagree with me. That's just one long-time broadcaster's opinion. And, there you have it.