• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Clear Channel and local music

Re: Clear Channel

> > > You have to admit, they have made terrestrial radio a
> bit
> > > more boring now days. Since they own so many stations,
> > > there's less competition.
> > >
> >
> > Thats BS. They own 10% of the stations out there. Thats
> > like saying Apple is creating less competition in the
> > computer business.
>
> I love this number that's always thrown out about Clear
> Channel. They own 1200 stations, 10 (closer to 11%) of the
> total number of radio stations in America.

Ooooooo 11% EXCUUUUUSE MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>
> But that tells me nothing.
>

Then you are not looking well enough.

> Let's look at Cleveland-Akron, for example. Clear Channel
> owns 9 stations, a majority of them are full-market FM
> signals (in fact, of those 9, 5 are full-market), and one of
> two 50kw AMs. Both market's stations reach substantially
> all of the other's (that is, the C-town FMs reach
> substantially all of Akron, and vice versa).
>
> What Clear Channel has done is programmed its clusters in
> such a way that none of the music FMs compete with one
> another. As a result of cluster programming, no one's toes
> are stepped on and each station keeps its audience with that
> one station. As a result of not competing in-house, and
> barely competing with the other stations, the incentive to
> be better vanishes.
>

Umm ya. OF course they would do this. Why would this be a surprise. IT IS BUSINESS. And by the way, bring in a cluster of 6 stations myself you see a TON of internal competition.

> Why be better when you can be mediocre, get the job done,
> make your boss happy, and make the cluster its revenue? It
> makes for mediocrity in radio, and makes for boring radio
> art.
>

Well I dont know about Cleveland, but other markets are not boring. What do YOU consider to be non-boring?

> This didn't happen 10 years ago. Clusters still existed,
> but they were smaller, meaning the number of market stations
> competing was larger. You had two alternative music
> stations, two top 40 stations, two AC stations, two soft
> rock stations, two urban stations, etc. Head-to-head
> competition was prevalent--and because two unrelated
> competitors went head-to-head for the same format audience,
> as well as general demo audience, it made for better
> programming. You HAD to be a better programmed station to
> beat the other guy and keep your collective jobs.
>

Most of the major markets I haev seens still have this type of formqat layout.

> That's not true anymore. You don't have to be the better
> programmed station when you're competing with yourself. In
> years past WMMS and WMJI and WMVX would have competed for
> part of the same pie. Now, they're not even close to
> competing with one another. And whether they beat one
> another doesn't matter--because the money is all going to
> the same pot. So what's the incentive? If I can get by
> with the least, why do more work and be the best?
>

Obviously you are not in a cluster as you wold see internal cometition.

> So, don't tell me there's less competition because
> nationally Clear Channel owns 10% of the stations. That
> means only that 10% of the stations aren't competing with
> one another. Is that progress?
>

We are talking TEN PERCENT! TEN PERCENT ooo sorry ELEVEN PERCENT.

> What this all comes down to is that broadcast radio is sui
> generis--a thing unto itself. This is true in terms of how
> the law applies to it, and it's true how business doctrines
> apply to it. It is not a totally free market, as long as
> licensure, content regulation, and artificial limits on
> ownership exist. So let's stop treating it as a fake free
> market. It's not--and never will be. So expanding the
> "free market" in such a closed system does nothing but place
> the finite number of market licenses in fewer and fewer
> hands.
>
> In other words--lessening competition, and lessening
> competitive impulses. It makes for bad economics, and makes
> for bad radio.
>

Let me introduce you to Business 101.
 
Re: Clear Channel

Instead of platitudes and mocking offense at a number (which was an off-hand comment anyway), can you tell me where I'm wrong, with specifics? Or am I just to take your word for it?

You asked what I consider boring radio: heavily researched formats, like WMJI, that's burning its playlist to a crisp (as is WMVX--"MIX"), combined with tired jingle packages (WMJI's is going on 7 years old now), as well as uninspired imaging cluster-wide. Add to that, I can't remember the last time a LIVE music FM remote did a full on-site show in the area, instead of just a throw by cell phone (or maybe Hotline, if we're lucky). Of course, since the weekends are voicetracked it's not that surprising. Remotes are nice, but merely being there isn't enough.

I can remember the days not that long ago (less than 8 years) when WMJI's Big Red Jukebox (complete with studio) and WMMS actually appeared at events, and did stuff on-air--within the format. Now, they stick the station van out in front of a mall with nary a staffer around. No stickers, no t-shirts, no promo materials, etc. The one thing audiences always seek is free shiznit--not just us radio geeks.

Cold segues are killing the music flow, as is DJ intro/outro patter without the jock really realizing that it doesn't belong in front of THAT song, but should have been in front of the cold seg. That's a combination of bad jock talent, and bad PD leadership. Maybe I'm onto the source of the problem here?

You know what else is boring radio--ads for other cluster stations instead of a station's own liner. If I'm essentially directed to WXXX, why the hell would I want to switch to WYYY which plays something I have absolutely no interest in hearing (for example, contemporary country promos on an oldies station). Not that it matters to them--if I go from WXXX to WYYY, I'm staying within their system. The numbers are going to the same place.

Internal cluster competition. May I ask you to describe an example? Because I'm not seeing it in Cleveland's CC cluster, and it's not very evident in Pittsburgh's cluster either.

Obviously I struck a chord, but instead of being outraged that I challenged the status quo, perhaps we could have a discussion of why it works (or doesn't) and why it's not boring (or is).
 
Re: Are there any "All Local" stations anywhere?

> >
> > 101.1 KBON/Lafayette, LA plays an "all-Louisiana" format
> > consisting of Zydeco, Cajun Folk, "Swamp Pop" (50s-60s
> > rock-tinged cajun folk music), and blues.
>
> That would seem to qualify pretty closely. Interesting that
> what you have is a form of music that is seldom heard
> outside a very specific area.
>
> This brings to mind KXTN in San Antonio, which plays Tejano
> music. Nearly all is produced within a 200 mile radius of
> SA, and the music has never gained a foothold outside the
> state of Texas.

Speaking of regional formats, what about Cox' Hawaiian-formatted stations? In Honolulu, there's KCCN 100.3 with a Hawaiian CHR format and 105.1 KINE with a Hawaiian AC format. Clear Channel owns KDNN 98.5, which appears to be a Hawaiian CHR with some mainstream R/CHR artists.

While Hawaii is fairly separate from most US radio happenings, these two large radio corporations do run locally-programmed formats in at least one place.
 
Re: Clear Channel

> Instead of platitudes and mocking offense at a number (which
> was an off-hand comment anyway), can you tell me where I'm
> wrong, with specifics? Or am I just to take your word for
> it?


Ummm it was asked of YOU to provide examples. And yes I can proivide my end.

>
> You asked what I consider boring radio: heavily researched
> formats, like WMJI, that's burning its playlist to a crisp
> (as is WMVX--"MIX"), combined with tired jingle packages
> (WMJI's is going on 7 years old now), as well as uninspired
> imaging cluster-wide. Add to that, I can't remember the
> last time a LIVE music FM remote did a full on-site show in
> the area, instead of just a throw by cell phone (or maybe
> Hotline, if we're lucky). Of course, since the weekends are
> voicetracked it's not that surprising. Remotes are nice,
> but merely being there isn't enough.
>

OK you are talking about ONE MARKET. Expand the horizons for a little while. You might find what you are looking for.

Our cluster does a high quality ISDN remote from a night club once per month. Multiple stations have done live remotes bringing in live talent into the studios, or we even use our conference room if we need to.

For remotes cell phones are VERBOTEN!

> I can remember the days not that long ago (less than 8
> years) when WMJI's Big Red Jukebox (complete with studio)
> and WMMS actually appeared at events, and did stuff
> on-air--within the format. Now, they stick the station van
> out in front of a mall with nary a staffer around. No
> stickers, no t-shirts, no promo materials, etc. The one
> thing audiences always seek is free shiznit--not just us
> radio geeks.
>

Again you are talking about one station. Your rip was on all of Clear Channel.

> Cold segues are killing the music flow, as is DJ intro/outro
> patter without the jock really realizing that it doesn't
> belong in front of THAT song, but should have been in front
> of the cold seg. That's a combination of bad jock talent,
> and bad PD leadership. Maybe I'm onto the source of the
> problem here?
>
> You know what else is boring radio--ads for other cluster
> stations instead of a station's own liner. If I'm
> essentially directed to WXXX, why the hell would I want to
> switch to WYYY which plays something I have absolutely no
> interest in hearing (for example, contemporary country
> promos on an oldies station). Not that it matters to
> them--if I go from WXXX to WYYY, I'm staying within their
> system. The numbers are going to the same place.
>

Agreed thats weird.

> Internal cluster competition. May I ask you to describe an
> example? Because I'm not seeing it in Cleveland's CC
> cluster, and it's not very evident in Pittsburgh's cluster
> either.
>

Well lets put it this way, the producers are always sneaking around so that the other stations dont know who they are going to bring in. Being an engineer, they need to come to me for certain things (mics, mixing borads etc) and ask me not to tell anyone so that the other stations dont find out.

> Obviously I struck a chord, but instead of being outraged
> that I challenged the status quo, perhaps we could have a
> discussion of why it works (or doesn't) and why it's not
> boring (or is).
>


I am all for that! But your comments didnt start out that way, did they.
 
Re: Clear Channel

> > You asked what I consider boring radio: heavily researched
>
> > formats, like WMJI, that's burning its playlist to a crisp
>
> > (as is WMVX--"MIX"), combined with tired jingle packages
> > (WMJI's is going on 7 years old now), as well as
> uninspired
> > imaging cluster-wide. Add to that, I can't remember the
> > last time a LIVE music FM remote did a full on-site show
> in
> > the area, instead of just a throw by cell phone (or maybe
> > Hotline, if we're lucky). Of course, since the weekends
> are
> > voicetracked it's not that surprising. Remotes are nice,
> > but merely being there isn't enough.
> >
>
> OK you are talking about ONE MARKET. Expand the horizons
> for a little while. You might find what you are looking
> for.

I'm using Cleveland as an example of what I've seen from C-Town, to Pittsburgh, to Youngstown, all the Way to Washington, D.C. And that's just by listening. Anecdotal evidence meant to set up what I've perceived to be working-orders at Clear Channel. Your cluster's bucking the trend may in fact be as much of an outlier as Cleveland appears to be to you.

> Our cluster does a high quality ISDN remote from a night
> club once per month. Multiple stations have done live
> remotes bringing in live talent into the studios, or we even
> use our conference room if we need to.

Well, that's good. It's refreshing to see that some stations are supporting the acts they play. But when was the last on-location remote--that is, actually broadcasting live from Bill's House of Hair or whatever. That's something that's really pretty exciting to me the listener (when I can take off my jock hat).

> For remotes cell phones are VERBOTEN!

That's definitely not company-wide policy.

> > I can remember the days not that long ago (less than 8
> > years) when WMJI's Big Red Jukebox (complete with studio)
> > and WMMS actually appeared at events, and did stuff
> > on-air--within the format. Now, they stick the station
> van
> > out in front of a mall with nary a staffer around. No
> > stickers, no t-shirts, no promo materials, etc. The one
> > thing audiences always seek is free shiznit--not just us
> > radio geeks.
> >
>
> Again you are talking about one station. Your rip was on
> all of Clear Channel.

Yes, see above. I've seen it in Cleveland, I've seen it in Pittsburgh. Stick the van out front, that'll do fine. No promo materials and no live shots.

> > Cold segues are killing the music flow, as is DJ
> intro/outro
> > patter without the jock really realizing that it doesn't
> > belong in front of THAT song, but should have been in
> front
> > of the cold seg. That's a combination of bad jock talent,
>
> > and bad PD leadership. Maybe I'm onto the source of the
> > problem here?
> >
> > You know what else is boring radio--ads for other cluster
> > stations instead of a station's own liner. If I'm
> > essentially directed to WXXX, why the hell would I want to
>
> > switch to WYYY which plays something I have absolutely no
> > interest in hearing (for example, contemporary country
> > promos on an oldies station). Not that it matters to
> > them--if I go from WXXX to WYYY, I'm staying within their
> > system. The numbers are going to the same place.
> >
>
> Agreed thats weird.

It's been like that in Cleveland's cluster since Jacor bought it in '98. It's only gotten worse since Clear Channel came on board. Pittsburgh's the same way.

> > Internal cluster competition. May I ask you to describe
> an
> > example? Because I'm not seeing it in Cleveland's CC
> > cluster, and it's not very evident in Pittsburgh's cluster
>
> > either.
> >
>
> Well lets put it this way, the producers are always sneaking
> around so that the other stations dont know who they are
> going to bring in. Being an engineer, they need to come to
> me for certain things (mics, mixing borads etc) and ask me
> not to tell anyone so that the other stations dont find out.

Well, that's actually refreshing to hear. It sounds like I'd rather be in Milwaukee than in Cleveland (aside from the beer and bowling).

> > Obviously I struck a chord, but instead of being outraged
> > that I challenged the status quo, perhaps we could have a
> > discussion of why it works (or doesn't) and why it's not
> > boring (or is).
> >

> I am all for that! But your comments didnt start out that
> way, did they.

I've said all of this before, and had an email from a Cleveland cluster employee saying I was right on. If Cleveland's problems are sui generis, then I'm willing to concede that Clear Channel's not totally a competitive screw-up. But I've seen it in Pittsburgh too. It's possible this all comes down to cluster leadership and programming direction--two areas for which Cleveland's notorious, and Pittsburgh's rising (falling?) to meet.

To me, it appears that Clear Channel's ownership of its stations has limited competition by taking those stations out of the whole, lessening incentive to do better. This is especially true when combined with the cluster programming concept that doesn't want to step on toes and "directs" the listener to their little box with little bleed over.

Never said it was objective fact, just my observation.

I await your comments.
 
Re: Clear Channel

Let me say something about Clear Channel in having to compete against them in a relatively small market.

They were a pain in the butt to program against. I was working for a mom and pop owner and two of my three formats competed directly against them. They had FAR more resources than I could ever had where I was. They had better news, more equipment, and had better prizes. Granted, they were nationwide prizes, but giving away a thousand dollars everyday just sounds big to a listener. Many clusters have huge news departments that win tons of awards, and rightfully so. What is wrong with cross-promoting? Heck I've done it at clusters I've worked for. Got an AM news/talk station in the building? Have them provide the news for your FMs with a promote for "Tune to WXXX for local news 24 hours a day..." I don't want to, and can't, put 24 hours news a day on my FMs. So why not tell people where to go to get it?

Does anybody remember Hurrican Katrina? Clear Channel partnered with Entercom to keep radio stations on the air? They also provide relief to one another in the gulf coast area so when one or more markets get hit, everyone in the area pitches in. If they didn't care about their products or the people they serve, why would they do this?

The problem is that we, as radio people, see things in radio that listeners don't really see. Ask any random person on the street who Clear Channel is. They have no idea. Listeners have no idea who owns a radio station and for that matter don't really care. That's why Clear Channel stations are on the top of the ratings in many, many markets.

I don't work for Clear Channel, but just like David Eduardo said, I do respect them because I have competed against them. There are things they have gotten wrong, but what owner or cluster is perfectly right? I've seen owners and clusters smaller than Clear Channel doing a lot of the same things in terms of programming moves and operations. Why? Because there is a lot of things they do that just make sense. I'll say it, Clear Channel is the summary of efficiency and smart business decisions. Some things didn't work out, and some did.




> > > You asked what I consider boring radio: heavily
> researched
> >
> > > formats, like WMJI, that's burning its playlist to a
> crisp
> >
> > > (as is WMVX--"MIX"), combined with tired jingle packages
>
> > > (WMJI's is going on 7 years old now), as well as
> > uninspired
> > > imaging cluster-wide. Add to that, I can't remember the
>
> > > last time a LIVE music FM remote did a full on-site show
>
> > in
> > > the area, instead of just a throw by cell phone (or
> maybe
> > > Hotline, if we're lucky). Of course, since the weekends
>
> > are
> > > voicetracked it's not that surprising. Remotes are
> nice,
> > > but merely being there isn't enough.
> > >
> >
> > OK you are talking about ONE MARKET. Expand the horizons
> > for a little while. You might find what you are looking
> > for.
>
> I'm using Cleveland as an example of what I've seen from
> C-Town, to Pittsburgh, to Youngstown, all the Way to
> Washington, D.C. And that's just by listening. Anecdotal
> evidence meant to set up what I've perceived to be
> working-orders at Clear Channel. Your cluster's bucking the
> trend may in fact be as much of an outlier as Cleveland
> appears to be to you.
>
> > Our cluster does a high quality ISDN remote from a night
> > club once per month. Multiple stations have done live
> > remotes bringing in live talent into the studios, or we
> even
> > use our conference room if we need to.
>
> Well, that's good. It's refreshing to see that some
> stations are supporting the acts they play. But when was
> the last on-location remote--that is, actually broadcasting
> live from Bill's House of Hair or whatever. That's
> something that's really pretty exciting to me the listener
> (when I can take off my jock hat).
>
> > For remotes cell phones are VERBOTEN!
>
> That's definitely not company-wide policy.
>
> > > I can remember the days not that long ago (less than 8
> > > years) when WMJI's Big Red Jukebox (complete with
> studio)
> > > and WMMS actually appeared at events, and did stuff
> > > on-air--within the format. Now, they stick the station
> > van
> > > out in front of a mall with nary a staffer around. No
> > > stickers, no t-shirts, no promo materials, etc. The one
>
> > > thing audiences always seek is free shiznit--not just us
>
> > > radio geeks.
> > >
> >
> > Again you are talking about one station. Your rip was on
> > all of Clear Channel.
>
> Yes, see above. I've seen it in Cleveland, I've seen it in
> Pittsburgh. Stick the van out front, that'll do fine. No
> promo materials and no live shots.
>
> > > Cold segues are killing the music flow, as is DJ
> > intro/outro
> > > patter without the jock really realizing that it doesn't
>
> > > belong in front of THAT song, but should have been in
> > front
> > > of the cold seg. That's a combination of bad jock
> talent,
> >
> > > and bad PD leadership. Maybe I'm onto the source of the
>
> > > problem here?
> > >
> > > You know what else is boring radio--ads for other
> cluster
> > > stations instead of a station's own liner. If I'm
> > > essentially directed to WXXX, why the hell would I want
> to
> >
> > > switch to WYYY which plays something I have absolutely
> no
> > > interest in hearing (for example, contemporary country
> > > promos on an oldies station). Not that it matters to
> > > them--if I go from WXXX to WYYY, I'm staying within
> their
> > > system. The numbers are going to the same place.
> > >
> >
> > Agreed thats weird.
>
> It's been like that in Cleveland's cluster since Jacor
> bought it in '98. It's only gotten worse since Clear
> Channel came on board. Pittsburgh's the same way.
>
> > > Internal cluster competition. May I ask you to describe
>
> > an
> > > example? Because I'm not seeing it in Cleveland's CC
> > > cluster, and it's not very evident in Pittsburgh's
> cluster
> >
> > > either.
> > >
> >
> > Well lets put it this way, the producers are always
> sneaking
> > around so that the other stations dont know who they are
> > going to bring in. Being an engineer, they need to come
> to
> > me for certain things (mics, mixing borads etc) and ask me
>
> > not to tell anyone so that the other stations dont find
> out.
>
> Well, that's actually refreshing to hear. It sounds like
> I'd rather be in Milwaukee than in Cleveland (aside from the
> beer and bowling).
>
> > > Obviously I struck a chord, but instead of being
> outraged
> > > that I challenged the status quo, perhaps we could have
> a
> > > discussion of why it works (or doesn't) and why it's not
>
> > > boring (or is).
> > >
>
> > I am all for that! But your comments didnt start out that
>
> > way, did they.
>
> I've said all of this before, and had an email from a
> Cleveland cluster employee saying I was right on. If
> Cleveland's problems are sui generis, then I'm willing to
> concede that Clear Channel's not totally a competitive
> screw-up. But I've seen it in Pittsburgh too. It's
> possible this all comes down to cluster leadership and
> programming direction--two areas for which Cleveland's
> notorious, and Pittsburgh's rising (falling?) to meet.
>
> To me, it appears that Clear Channel's ownership of its
> stations has limited competition by taking those stations
> out of the whole, lessening incentive to do better. This is
> especially true when combined with the cluster programming
> concept that doesn't want to step on toes and "directs" the
> listener to their little box with little bleed over.
>
> Never said it was objective fact, just my observation.
>
> I await your comments.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
The power is yours!</P>
 
Re: Clear Channel

> Let me say something about Clear Channel in having to
> compete against them in a relatively small market.
>
> They were a pain in the butt to program against. I was
> working for a mom and pop owner and two of my three formats
> competed directly against them. They had FAR more resources
> than I could ever had where I was. They had better news,
> more equipment, and had better prizes. Granted, they were
> nationwide prizes, but giving away a thousand dollars
> everyday just sounds big to a listener. Many clusters have
> huge news departments that win tons of awards, and
> rightfully so. What is wrong with cross-promoting? Heck
> I've done it at clusters I've worked for. Got an AM
> news/talk station in the building? Have them provide the
> news for your FMs with a promote for "Tune to WXXX for local
> news 24 hours a day..." I don't want to, and can't, put 24
> hours news a day on my FMs. So why not tell people where to
> go to get it?

That's one thing, and the CC clusters do that all the time. I have less of a problem with that than I do actual PROMOS for OTHER MUSIC FMs on a music FM. Again, my example, because I've heard it--the contemporary country station promoed on the oldies station. I once heard the active rock station promoed on the oldies station. That almost made me drive off the road.

> Does anybody remember Hurrican Katrina? Clear Channel
> partnered with Entercom to keep radio stations on the air?
> They also provide relief to one another in the gulf coast
> area so when one or more markets get hit, everyone in the
> area pitches in. If they didn't care about their products
> or the people they serve, why would they do this?

No one's arguing with their Katrina stuff. They are to be rightly commended for that. But once that dust settled, did their stations COMPETE with one another? That is the whole point of this: why Clear Channel's cluster concept reduces intra-market/intra-cluster competition (and, as a sideline, why such a thing makes for boring radio). Good deeds by CC doesn't reduce its competition factor.

> The problem is that we, as radio people, see things in radio
> that listeners don't really see. Ask any random person on
> the street who Clear Channel is. They have no idea.
> Listeners have no idea who owns a radio station and for that
> matter don't really care. That's why Clear Channel stations
> are on the top of the ratings in many, many markets.

You underestimate the listeners. For years Clear Channel used the "a service of Clear Channel Worldwide" tag on their top of the hour IDs on all their stations. What purpose does that serve, other than to let listeners know who owns the stations? Listeners DO pay attention to such things.

> I don't work for Clear Channel, but just like David Eduardo
> said, I do respect them because I have competed against
> them. There are things they have gotten wrong, but what
> owner or cluster is perfectly right? I've seen owners and
> clusters smaller than Clear Channel doing a lot of the same
> things in terms of programming moves and operations. Why?
> Because there is a lot of things they do that just make
> sense. I'll say it, Clear Channel is the summary of
> efficiency and smart business decisions. Some things didn't
> work out, and some did.

But radio is not a true business. No other business in America has government-imposed artificial ownership caps, licensing requirements, and content-regulations. Because radio is not a true free-market business (despite how owners wish to see it), it cannot be run as such. Clear Channel's really been bowled over by business folks running parts of the radio wing that have no experience in radio itself. Coming out of business school and dropping into radio ownership does not bode well. As internships are almost a necessity for talent, such should be for radio business folk as well.
 
Re: Clear Channel

> > You have to admit, they have made terrestrial radio a bit
> > more boring now days. Since they own so many stations,
> > there's less competition.
>
> Of course, you can not substantiate this as it is malarky.

Yeah, I guess 14 million Ipods in the last quarter of 2005 don't mean a thing at all.
 
1. Radio is a business...many business are regulated.
2. If CC is not programming against it's self, then it must mean there is more variety of formats in each market. 6 different owners might get you 6 different CHR stations.
3. I worked for several mom and pop owners before working for CC. Believe me CC spends far more on give-aways, technology, and just about everything else. Some small owners might not even use cell phones because they dont want to pay the bill!
4. CC is not perfect, things have been tried that didn't work...but at least CC is not afraid to innovate.
5. I've worked in the business for 21 years. I remember it before consolidation. Many (not all) small companies were operated like used car lots. Schlocky sales reps with little or no reaserch, station managers trading everything for their own personal gain, PD's giving spins to records that suck just to get their Jamaca trip. The large companies, CC, CBS, ABC, and others elevated the proffesionalism of the business.

Sorry things are not the way they were 20 years ago, and yes things are not perfect today...but they were far from perfect before consolidation.
 
Re: Clear Channel

> You underestimate the listeners. For years Clear Channel
> used the "a service of Clear Channel Worldwide" tag on their
> top of the hour IDs on all their stations. What purpose
> does that serve, other than to let listeners know who owns
> the stations? Listeners DO pay attention to such things.

I give the listeners all the credit in the world. I'm just basing this from experience. Nobody knows the name of the company I work for. We promote it on the air with some promotional spots for sales, but the average listener still couldn't tell you what our company is. Much less they really don't care. They just care that Z95 plays the hits and gives them the info on what's happening in town. THAT is what they care about.

The only purpose it serves it to brand something that doesn't really mean anything to anybody. I disagree with the whole "Let's tag our Legal ID's" because the Clear Channel name to the average person is meaningless. It does serve some purpose for advertising, however.

>
> But radio is not a true business.

You've obviously never run one. There are budgets, personnel, operations, sales, marketing, and more involved in running a radio station. That sounds like a business to me. Is it different? Sure. There are government regulations to deal with. Large corporations have the same problem. But getting down to the nuts and bolts it is just like any other business.

I'm still failing to see your point about not competing. XM radio and Sirius have channels that are pretty well defined. They play a particular blend of music. Their idea is to give you MORE choices. With clusters protecting each other, each station plays its own blend of music and doesn't cross. So that equals more choices for the listener. How is this a bad thing?? Do you really want 2 AC's in the same building competing? Remember the 70's/80's when all there was on FM was country and beautiful music? 4 signals in the market playing all the same music. Bleccchh...



No other business in
> America has government-imposed artificial ownership caps,
> licensing requirements, and content-regulations. Because
> radio is not a true free-market business (despite how owners
> wish to see it), it cannot be run as such. Clear Channel's
> really been bowled over by business folks running parts of
> the radio wing that have no experience in radio itself.
> Coming out of business school and dropping into radio
> ownership does not bode well. As internships are almost a
> necessity for talent, such should be for radio business folk
> as well.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
The power is yours!</P>
 
Re: Clear Channel

> > > You have to admit, they have made terrestrial radio a
> bit
> > > more boring now days. Since they own so many stations,
> > > there's less competition.
> >
> > Of course, you can not substantiate this as it is malarky.
>
>
> Yeah, I guess 14 million Ipods in the last quarter of 2005
> don't mean a thing at all.

You have not made a connection between ownership of iPods and any reduction in radio listening.

To do this, you would have to:

1. Correlate any decrease in radio listening with usage of iPods specifically.
2. quantify actual iPod usage.
3. Eliminate iPod usage which did not replace radio usage, such as replacemnt for a portable CD or cassette player.
4. Take into account the fact that there are 1 billion radios in the US.
5. compare iPod and non-iPod owners as to radio usage.
6. Determine the percentage of the 12+ universe that uses an iPod.

There are over 500 million TVs in the US. Radio usage, per person, prior to the lifting of the freeze, was 21 hours a week. Today, about 54 years later, it is 10:15 per person.
>
 
Re: Clear Channel

> > > You have to admit, they have made terrestrial radio a
> bit
> > > more boring now days. Since they own so many stations,
> > > there's less competition.
> >
> > Of course, you can not substantiate this as it is malarky.
>
>
> Yeah, I guess 14 million Ipods in the last quarter of 2005
> don't mean a thing at all.

I am probably one of the last people on the planet to have gotten a portable music player (this week), but it comes long after I stopped listening to the radio for anything but professional reasons.

One thing I have already noticed is that I am going to have to devote a lot of time to putting the music I want on this device, and I'm probably going to procrastinate about updating the music on it. Given that I have the technology at my fingertips every day to create MP3 files, that is a telling statement. I have to wonder how long the <u>average</u> user will want to take the time to update their libraries, and how long they will stick with it once they haven't updated it in several months.

Not scientific, just thoughts based on my own situation.<P ID="signature">______________


</P>
 
Re: Clear Channel

>
> You underestimate the listeners. For years Clear Channel
> used the "a service of Clear Channel Worldwide" tag on their
> top of the hour IDs on all their stations. What purpose
> does that serve, other than to let listeners know who owns
> the stations? Listeners DO pay attention to such things.

The rash of "A Mega Industries station" after consolidation was intended to pump the stock price, not inform regular listeners. Nowhere ws this more prevalent than in the financial centers like NY and Chicago and LA.

When you do diary reviews, it is obvious that listeners can not tell what they are listening to, which is why 70% to 80% of diary entries are by frequency. And why KGO know they have to say KGO 50 to 60 times an hour.

Most of us are perpetually trying to simplify the identity of staitns, not complicate it... until some coroprate moron says we need to add the company name, which confuses diarykeepers.

I saw a research project for a #1 morning guy, who, to his credit, said the calls and frequency more than his own name (rare, huh?). The listeners, in 40% of the cases, had no idea where that show was broadcast. They knew they listened to the show, but had no idea what the station was called.
 
Re: Clear Channel

> > But radio is not a true business.
>
> You've obviously never run one. There are budgets,
> personnel, operations, sales, marketing, and more involved
> in running a radio station. That sounds like a business to
> me. Is it different? Sure. There are government
> regulations to deal with. Large corporations have the same
> problem. But getting down to the nuts and bolts it is just
> like any other business.

I have run a business--and I've run a radio station.

But unlike a radio station, those other corporations you reference, as well as my business and thousands like it, they did not need government approval to begin operating. Without the government saying "you can be a radio station owner," these radio companies would not exist. Because you need government grants of power to exist, radio companies are incomparable to any other business. Budgets, operations, sales, etc. notwithstanding (general concepts applicable to all business and personal finances and organization)--it is all second-tier to the fact of existence.

That existence owes itself to government authorization, and licensing, and review every 8 years (cursory though it may be). NO OTHER COMPANY ON THE PLANET--except for maybe nuclear power companies and utilities--has such regulation defining itself.

And in no other market is there an artificial cap on ownership. Without that artificial cap, radio would be like any other business--and would interfere with every other station's signal.

Despite what the Telecom Act of 1996 proposed to do, it did not enhance competition. It diminished it. Concentrated ownership in lesser hands is not competition, despite what the NAB's lobbyists said then (and now). If statiosn in 1995 were losing money and were unprofitable, then maybe those signals should have darkened or been sold. But the solution was not to artificially prop-up failed businesses by allowing the highest bidder to grab them up and take them out of the marketplace. The solution was to let market economics and the ultimate disposition of radio stations to rise and fall on their own merit, not the merit of thirsty companies.

The government expanding license caps like this is nothing less than corporate welfare. And it destroyed the market economics--what little there was--of the radio industry.

> I'm still failing to see your point about not competing. XM
> radio and Sirius have channels that are pretty well defined.
> They play a particular blend of music. Their idea is to
> give you MORE choices. With clusters protecting each other,
> each station plays its own blend of music and doesn't cross.
> So that equals more choices for the listener. How is this
> a bad thing?? Do you really want 2 AC's in the same
> building competing? Remember the 70's/80's when all there
> was on FM was country and beautiful music? 4 signals in the
> market playing all the same music. Bleccchh...

XM and Sirius are incompatible with the radio argument: they don't have imposed caps, only caps defined by their technological advancement (bandwidth of the satellite signal or whatever it's called). With a mega satellite, so to speak, XM's channels could be more than the 250 or whatever it is now.

If the cluster concept is all about playing a particular blend of music--each station pigeonholed--why do we see formats going away? Why is oldies declining? Why is big band all but dead?

The reason is because advertising and selling is important. How can you sell a station that attracts this portion of the audience and only this portion of the audience? What advertiser will stay with the station if it's not interested in, let alone actively, expanding its audience? There is no room for growth, no incentive to be better when the station is artificially limited to the sapce between X and Y--no going over into Z, that's the other station's territory. And don't even think about W--that's that station's territory.

Which is how and why we have such stupid concepts as programming to businessmen between 35 and 45, programming to women in suburbs 35 to 45, etc. It is narrowcasting, and all of the means are to that narrow end. And when you have a narrow end, your means are equally narrow, safe, and boring.

I'm sure some programmer or sales manager or some such will jump in here to attempt to explain how this is all guided by advertisers. But stations CHOOSE to narrow the demos--and Clear Channel (and CBS, and Entercom, and Cumulus, etc.) are masters at it. But to what expense?

The expense of being the best. Why expend the energy to be best when you can be merely above competent?

Those who succeed are the best. It's a shame that radio companies haven't figured that out. The future is the past, or something like that--wasn't that the quote?
 
Re: Clear Channel

> > > > You have to admit, they have made terrestrial radio a
> > bit
> > > > more boring now days. Since they own so many stations,
>
> > > > there's less competition.
> > >
> > > Of course, you can not substantiate this as it is
> malarky.
> >
> >
> > Yeah, I guess 14 million Ipods in the last quarter of 2005
>
> > don't mean a thing at all.
>
> You have not made a connection between ownership of iPods
> and any reduction in radio listening.
>
> To do this, you would have to:
>
> 1. Correlate any decrease in radio listening with usage of
> iPods specifically.
> 2. quantify actual iPod usage.
> 3. Eliminate iPod usage which did not replace radio usage,
> such as replacemnt for a portable CD or cassette player.
> 4. Take into account the fact that there are 1 billion
> radios in the US.
> 5. compare iPod and non-iPod owners as to radio usage.
> 6. Determine the percentage of the 12+ universe that uses an
> iPod.
>
> There are over 500 million TVs in the US. Radio usage, per
> person, prior to the lifting of the freeze, was 21 hours a
> week. Today, about 54 years later, it is 10:15 per person.
> >
>
And explain why radio didnt take a hit when other portable music devices were released. 8-tracks, cassettes, CD's. I've been making mix tapes for 30 years, sure an Ipod makes it easier... but its essentially the same thing.
 
> 1. Radio is a business...many business are regulated.

Yes, but very very very few businesses have to get permission from the government first before they start up.

> 2. If CC is not programming against it's self, then it must
> mean there is more variety of formats in each market. 6
> different owners might get you 6 different CHR stations.

And, so what? Shouldn't each station strive to be best at CHR? And it's entirely possible that those 6 different owners might choose non-CHR formats. Why not let THEM decide, instead of investing the decision over the direction of 6 stations in a single company?

> 3. I worked for several mom and pop owners before working
> for CC. Believe me CC spends far more on give-aways,
> technology, and just about everything else. Some small
> owners might not even use cell phones because they dont want
> to pay the bill!
> 4. CC is not perfect, things have been tried that didn't
> work...but at least CC is not afraid to innovate.

Could you give some examples of their innovation?

> 5. I've worked in the business for 21 years. I remember it
> before consolidation. Many (not all) small companies were
> operated like used car lots. Schlocky sales reps with little
> or no reaserch, station managers trading everything for
> their own personal gain, PD's giving spins to records that
> suck just to get their Jamaca trip. The large companies, CC,
> CBS, ABC, and others elevated the proffesionalism of the
> business.

Every single one of those companies existed before consolidation. They were no less professional before 1996. The difference is that now, they own more stations. Nothing more, nothing less.

> Sorry things are not the way they were 20 years ago, and yes
> things are not perfect today...but they were far from
> perfect before consolidation.

Don't apologize. Nothing to apologize for. Unless you're a Member of Congress.

If things weren't perfect before, and they're not perfect now, why the change? Why, de facto, artificially limit the number of actors in the radio marketplace? Why price stations out of existence for a reasonable owner? And why continue to limit competition by placing the means of programming in fewer hands?

I'm not exactly sure when increased competition was defined as fewer participants, but it is a wholly erroneous definition and concept.
 
> > 1. Radio is a business...many business are regulated.
>
> Yes, but very very very few businesses have to get
> permission from the government first before they start up.

Oh really? Have you heard of a business license?

>
> > 2. If CC is not programming against it's self, then it
> must
> > mean there is more variety of formats in each market. 6
> > different owners might get you 6 different CHR stations.
>
> And, so what? Shouldn't each station strive to be best at
> CHR? And it's entirely possible that those 6 different
> owners might choose non-CHR formats. Why not let THEM
> decide, instead of investing the decision over the direction
> of 6 stations in a single company?
>


I think you missed the point.


> > 3. I worked for several mom and pop owners before working
> > for CC. Believe me CC spends far more on give-aways,
> > technology, and just about everything else. Some small
> > owners might not even use cell phones because they dont
> want
> > to pay the bill!
> > 4. CC is not perfect, things have been tried that didn't
> > work...but at least CC is not afraid to innovate.
>
> Could you give some examples of their innovation?
>

The Less Is More campaign would be one......


> > 5. I've worked in the business for 21 years. I remember it
>
> > before consolidation. Many (not all) small companies were
> > operated like used car lots. Schlocky sales reps with
> little
> > or no reaserch, station managers trading everything for
> > their own personal gain, PD's giving spins to records that
>
> > suck just to get their Jamaca trip. The large companies,
> CC,
> > CBS, ABC, and others elevated the proffesionalism of the
> > business.
>
> Every single one of those companies existed before
> consolidation. They were no less professional before 1996.
> The difference is that now, they own more stations. Nothing
> more, nothing less.
>
> > Sorry things are not the way they were 20 years ago, and
> yes
> > things are not perfect today...but they were far from
> > perfect before consolidation.
>
> Don't apologize. Nothing to apologize for. Unless you're a
> Member of Congress.
>
> If things weren't perfect before, and they're not perfect
> now, why the change? Why, de facto, artificially limit the
> number of actors in the radio marketplace? Why price
> stations out of existence for a reasonable owner? And why
> continue to limit competition by placing the means of
> programming in fewer hands?
>

The market decides what the porice of the radio stations are. Nothing else.

You really dont understand how a cluster works do you. In each cluster there are seperate PDs. The PDs are independant of each other, as a matter of fact they compeat with each other. How is that putting it into fewer hands?

> I'm not exactly sure when increased competition was defined
> as fewer participants, but it is a wholly erroneous
> definition and concept.
>


I would suggest that your definition is the one that is erroneous.
 
> You really dont understand how a cluster works do you. In
> each cluster there are seperate PDs. The PDs are
> independant of each other, as a matter of fact they compeat
> with each other. How is that putting it into fewer hands?
>

Yep, and PDs are always the ones who make final decisions about which format a given station would air.

[/sarcasm]
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom