• 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

> > > 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?

Poor analogy. All it takes to get a business license is to pay the fees to the city in which you want to do business.

A radio station license, on the other hand, requires an application, review, etc.

Further, to renew a business license, you pay a fee. To renew a station license, you submit a new application along with supporting documentation from your previous license term.

A business license is rarely denied, as long as you pay the fee. The FCC has denied many, many new station licenses over the years. There is no real comparison.<P ID="signature">______________


</P>
 
> Poor analogy. All it takes to get a business license is to
> pay the fees to the city in which you want to do business.
> A radio station license, on the other hand, requires an
> application, review, etc.

I agree with you on the business license, though I can see his point. As someone who has worked in a variety of different businesses, I can vouch for how tough it can be to get government approval to operate. For example, I can brew beer in my basement, but, if I choose to sell it, I have to have a permit from several different agencies all the way up to the ATF. If I want to open a restaurant, I have to not only have an occupancy permit, which means I have to prove the building is up to code and in compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act (if it was built after a certain date) but also have to have the health inspector approve and quite possibly go through several stages of liquor control. Getting approval to remodel can be a real pain, too. In most states, it's ten times worse when alcohol sales are involved. I can open a gas station, but not before I get permission from my state's Department of Natural Resources among other agencies. If I want to knock down the house on the corner to put my business there, I have to get not only a demolition permit but also have to go through a bureaucratic procedure to get the land zoned as commercial.

Almost every business has to get some form of government approval to operate, especially if members of the general public access it with any frequency. I understand that it's not necessarily the same as what radio broadcasters deal with, but the idea that only broacasters have to get government approval to operate is garbage. Plenty of potential business operations are denied various licenses from various government agencies on a daily basis.
 
> Almost every business has to get some form of government
> approval to operate, especially if members of the general
> public access it with any frequency. I understand that it's
> not necessarily the same as what radio broadcasters deal
> with, but the idea that only broacasters have to get
> government approval to operate is garbage. Plenty of
> potential business operations are denied various licenses
> from various government agencies on a daily basis.

Your analogies are far better than the "business license" one, though.

Having been involved in a few new station builds, I will say that the process of getting a new license can sometimes take as long as if -- using your examples -- I wanted to remodel a home into a restaurant, and include alcohol (from the basement brewery) and gasoline sales, with each permit having to be applied for separately.

I believe that where Clear Channel had an advantage was that they purchased existing stations, rather than building from scratch. Had they been concentrating on new stations rather than mergers and acquisitions, they would probably still be on station number 37.<P ID="signature">______________


</P>
 
> > > 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?

Never once. There may be liquor licenses, occupancy licenses, etc. But if you want to open Johnny Morgan Co. and sell widgets, there is no government body you must go before to obtain a widget license to sell widgets.

> > > 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.

I don't think I did. If so, what was the point so I may better respond.

> > > 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......

Reducing spot load to what it was 10 years ago or more is hardly innovative. Is going back to the past 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?
> >
>
> The market decides what the porice of the radio stations
> are. Nothing else.

Conceded. But that doesn't change my point.

> 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?

You really have no clue what some of your cluster-mates are doing. Cleveland has one PD for two stations (and has done so for at least 6 years). Pittsbugh is similar. What was that about competing? Hard to compete with yourself. Plus, each of those markets has a Regional Programming VP who oversees it all, makes decisions on his own, and has veto power over the station PDs. Hard to compete intra-cluster when you have one powerful PD, isn't it.

Fewer hands, as I said.

> > 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.

I invite corrections.
 
> Reducing spot load to what it was 10 years ago or more is
> hardly innovative. Is going back to the past innovation?

From what I've been reading, that seems to be what you're advocating. Are you not advocating going back to ownership caps before 1996?
 
> > Reducing spot load to what it was 10 years ago or more is
> > hardly innovative. Is going back to the past innovation?
>
> From what I've been reading, that seems to be what you're
> advocating. Are you not advocating going back to ownership
> caps before 1996?

Sure am. And I was all for Less is More. But that's not innovation--that's going back to the way things were. Why Clear Channel ever increased its spotload and ad time in the first place I'll never know (actually, I think I do know...)

You're only going to have innovation when you have a reason to innovate. When you're not competing against all the markets' stations, you have no incentive to be better, introduce new things, and set the pace. You only have a reason to maintain the status quo. And that leads to complacency and boredom.
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by Johnny Morgan on 04/14/06 01:49 AM.</FONT></P>
 
> Having been involved in a few new station builds, I will say
> that the process of getting a new license can sometimes take
> as long as if -- using your examples -- I wanted to remodel
> a home into a restaurant, and include alcohol (from the
> basement brewery) and gasoline sales, with each permit
> having to be applied for separately.

I've been fortunate enough not to be involved in new station builds, though I might have come close to the middle of one during the last auction when a local CP went up for grabs. However, a local weatherman who is also the station manager at the area ABC affiliate got the license. Paid over $1 million, too! It's really an experience I think I can do without. A few years ago, I worked for a company that upgraded the station I was at from a class A at 101.7 to a class C2 (and C1 by the time I got there) at 101.5 in 1992. One of the four owners was an engineer, and he once told me it took four years to get the upgrade on-air from the planning to the actual sign on. It involved at least one other move, probably more, and countless hours and paperwork.

> I believe that where Clear Channel had an advantage was that
> they purchased existing stations, rather than building from
> scratch. Had they been concentrating on new stations rather
> than mergers and acquisitions, they would probably still be
> on station number 37.

If that many. The joke always used to be that, if you bought a station, the license would be granted to you automatically. It was a lot easier than petitioning the FCC to allot a new station onto a city's frequency allocation table, which usually took lots of time and money for paperwork, attorneys and engineering studies, only to allow other bidders, either through comparative hearings or auctions, a chance at your hard-earned effort. At least one of R-I's posters tried several times to get a station this way and was never successful. The station that is now KMKT in Bells, TX was his creation. He may have gotten a settlement out of the final grant, but he didn't walk away with the station.
 
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.
>
> http://www.kbon.com/
>
> Stelly



This is one of my FAVORITE stations anywhere! I look forward to my trips to LA just so I can hear KBON... :)
 
> > Almost every business has to get some form of government
> > approval to operate, especially if members of the general
> > public access it with any frequency. I understand that
> it's
> > not necessarily the same as what radio broadcasters deal
> > with, but the idea that only broacasters have to get
> > government approval to operate is garbage. Plenty of
> > potential business operations are denied various licenses
> > from various government agencies on a daily basis.
>
> Your analogies are far better than the "business license"
> one, though.
>
> Having been involved in a few new station builds, I will say
> that the process of getting a new license can sometimes take
> as long as if -- using your examples -- I wanted to remodel
> a home into a restaurant, and include alcohol (from the
> basement brewery) and gasoline sales, with each permit
> having to be applied for separately.


I'm sure if I bought an existing restuarant it would be easier then starting one from scratch too.

Why shouldn't the government limit the number of McDonalds in s single town? And don't give me that limited band space agrument. Withthe creation of internet radio and satillite there are infinate choices for people who want to be entertained.

Worried about monopolies limiting employee and customer choice? Deal with the newspaper industry first, in most towns if I want to be a sports writter at a daily I have 1 company I can work for.

Owning 11% of the radio stations, when radio accounts for 8% of all advertising revenues in the country is a far cry from controlling anything.
>
> I believe that where Clear Channel had an advantage was that
> they purchased existing stations, rather than building from
> scratch. Had they been concentrating on new stations rather
> than mergers and acquisitions, they would probably still be
> on station number 37.
>
 
We may see whatthe radio world will be like with fewer CC, CBS and Cumules stations soon. I think we are in for a round of sell offs the next couple of year...putting the stations back in the hands of small owners, with little cash, and little ability to compete against Satilitte and internet competitors. Wonder how many in the secondary and small markets will survive at all.
 
> Why shouldn't the government limit the number of McDonalds
> in s single town? And don't give me that limited band space
> agrument. Withthe creation of internet radio and satillite
> there are infinate choices for people who want to be
> entertained.

See, I have to give that limited band space argument because that is what the Congress in the 1934 Comm Act and the Supreme Court have repeatedly cited as a factor in upholding government regulation of the broadcast industry. As long as that exists, we have to analyze under that rule.

McDonald's is not similarly situated. There is no physical limitation on the number of McDonald's restaurants, and there is no federal (or state) body that licenses fast-food restaurants. As long as the McDonald's franchisor meets zoning requirements, and gets the occupancy license and meets code requirements for safety, he can operate. He does not need a license from the government to sell hamburgers, fries, Shamrock (mop water) Shakes, etc.

> Worried about monopolies limiting employee and customer
> choice? Deal with the newspaper industry first, in most
> towns if I want to be a sports writter at a daily I have 1
> company I can work for.

Isn't that the market settling that? Isn't that what large radio companies want? Even though the newspaper industry and the radio industry are not alaogous at all (a free-market vs. a closed-market).

> Owning 11% of the radio stations, when radio accounts for 8%
> of all advertising revenues in the country is a far cry from
> controlling anything.

Again, that's 11% nationally. What is it market-by-market? And what coverage of the market is considered by those stations? And what is the competitive effect? Less hands controlling more.
 
> We may see whatthe radio world will be like with fewer CC,
> CBS and Cumules stations soon. I think we are in for a round
> of sell offs the next couple of year...putting the stations
> back in the hands of small owners, with little cash, and
> little ability to compete against Satilitte and internet
> competitors. Wonder how many in the secondary and small
> markets will survive at all.

If radio is surviving now against satellite and internet--as all indicators point to, see David's post this Friday AM about the Edison/Arbitron study--then with the same stations, they should still survive. More owners means more competition--either head-to-head within a format, or with additional formats.

Why is everyone scared of letting more hands into the sink?
 
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?
>

The days of Broadcasting eneded sometime in the late '70's. Now the only way to survive is narrowcasting. Ever head of the golf channel? According to your logic they should expand and show highlights of last nights baseball games.
BTW XM and Sirius take Narrowcasting to the next level.
 
> > We may see whatthe radio world will be like with fewer CC,
>
> > CBS and Cumules stations soon. I think we are in for a
> round
> > of sell offs the next couple of year...putting the
> stations
> > back in the hands of small owners, with little cash, and
> > little ability to compete against Satilitte and internet
> > competitors. Wonder how many in the secondary and small
> > markets will survive at all.
>
> If radio is surviving now against satellite and internet--as
> all indicators point to, see David's post this Friday AM
> about the Edison/Arbitron study--then with the same
> stations, they should still survive. More owners means more
> competition--either head-to-head within a format, or with
> additional formats.
>
> Why is everyone scared of letting more hands into the sink?
>

Because I saw what radio was like in the mid '80's. Lots of small owners, many who were cash strapped, running stations on a shoe string (not adding songs because we didn't have enough carts!). I think in many of the secondary markets more small owners = lots of the same format, run far less proffesionally. And you think you hear lots of VTing now, small owners with little cash will be VTing every shift.
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by Shawman on 04/17/06 01:55 PM.</FONT></P>
 
Re: Clear Channel

> The days of Broadcasting eneded sometime in the late '70's.
> Now the only way to survive is narrowcasting. Ever head of
> the golf channel? According to your logic they should expand
> and show highlights of last nights baseball games.
> BTW XM and Sirius take Narrowcasting to the next level.

A simple flaw in your analogy--both the Golf Channel and XM/Sirius are part of a pay service. If those channels were part of the broadcast band, Golf would not survive, and very few of the XM/Sirius music channels (and many of the talk channels) would survive.

I'm referring to open-source broadcast channels, not cable or satellite, which is not analogous to broadcast in any way, shape, or form.
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by Johnny Morgan on 04/17/06 03:21 PM.</FONT></P>
 
local artists format

Wouldn't have a clue, but then I don't know of any significant radio station in America (in a competitive market) that currently has such a format. My suspicion is that some of the major groups may use their HD channels for this in the future.

But I can't imagine an entire channel/station devoted to this that would have many more than a handful of listeners.

> I can't find any stations in CC's ownership with that
> format, and was asking what stations they're referring to.
> The statement said "some stations devote their entire format
> to local artists." Fair enough. What stations?
>
 
Muscle Shoals, Alabama

I beilieve there is (or was) an AM station in North West Alabama that dedicated itself to playing bands from or with roots in the Muscle Shoals music scene. I just did a google search and couldn't find it so perhaps it's off the air, but I remember reading about it around a year ago.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom