-
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 BACK TO THEIR SAME FOUL TRICKS
- Thread starter joshzz
- Start date
gr8oldies said:
We could start with Jerry Garcia, although at this point there may be other reasons why he does not remeber any Spanish...
DavidEduardo said:
One of those reasons being that, like Generalissimo Francisco Franco, he's still dead, and has been since 1995.
But we know what you're saying, David. He had other "influences" that might have had something to do with his not remembering any Spanish (or much of anything else, for that matter) while he was still living. ;D
One more good reason why Clear Channel should not be allowed to secure more stations. ???
http://rebelfrequencies.blogspot.com/2007/08/clear-channel-payola-and-how-theyre.html
http://rebelfrequencies.blogspot.com/2007/08/clear-channel-payola-and-how-theyre.html
josh said:
I hate to point this out, but one isn't required to present all of the facts in an unbiased way in order to get a book printed. For example, they don't own 60% of the radio stations. It's more like 8%.
Also, Clear Channel was NOT the company that "banned" the Dixie Chicks in 2003. That is a mistake that has been reprinted several times by bad journalists who don't check their facts. In fact, the radio company was Cumulus, but for some reason you don't see books written about Cumulus.
If you want to believe an article with those kinds of factual mistakes, be my guest. But that says more to me about you than CC.
Are there books that say CC is the devil? Sure. Are they a big target? Sure. Are they going to win a popularity contest? No.
But in all the books written, and all the investigations done, no one has found anything they've done that would disqualify them to own radio stations. Other than they don't like them.
TheBigA said:
After all the sales of the last two years, they are "down to" 846 stations... just a bit over 5% of all stations.
I read the "article" too... the author doesn't seem to be bothered by facts, such as the fact that owning that many stations is not illegal.
Yeah, if the author went so far as to find out about Cumulus, he would have seen that it was listener reaction that caused the songs to be pulled.
If you want to believe an article with those kinds of factual mistakes, be my guest. But that says more to me about you than CC.
It's like the Minot incident which Josh also posted, and which is also purely untrue.
The internet is to urban legends what a swamp is to alligators.
Clear Channel is like the Wal-Mart of Radio
How many Station's in SF does CC own??
How many Station's in SF does CC own??
Ok I would like to see a map of the USA and what the big boys own and where they are all located in relation to all the radio stations in the country.
Clear Channel's not been good for the radio industry, by and large, and you could say so whether you're referring to programming or sales, but since 1997, they're not the sole entity to blame for the lousy programming, the generic national playlists, the piped-in non-relevant non-local voices, rates that are a fraction of what they were (even counting for inflation) since 1997. Whether they LED, with staff-slashing and rate-cutting, in their markets or not, others followed, even in markets where they don't exist.
Today, we're faced with a medium that is still functioning on a business model contrived in the FM heyday, instead of forging ahead with innovation; club DJs can spin and segue from mp4 (videos) using their own (or club's) imaging and yet you don't see radio stations moving ahead to do the same (what an incredible online presence this would be - never MIND how it could facilitate a local cable channel (remember when you could see music videos on TV?) - another revenue source possibility. Some stations and companies aren't actively embracing mobile potential either; not all sales departments know how to sell (or even bother trying to sell) stream spots on TOP of terrestrial, or weaving in text capabilities to lower spot loads by getting clients to reduce their :60s to :30s and :30s to :15s by pushing the listener to "text" for more info. The possibilities are endless, but you don't see "radio" trying to innovate, as a medium, really.
Actually, the "big guys" (CC, Cumulus, Entercom, Citadel) DO employ some of those methods, but not all. The "old way" is driving off listeners, so who cares about "ratings" when the ratings we're getting are a read of a smaller audience? Getting 20% of a demo isn't the same AMOUNT of people if the amount of people, overall, is dwindling, slowl.
Between Pandora, iPods, iPads, other internet entities, radio has to figure out how to continue doing business, pushing client-to-consumer, and with OUT running the consumer off because we INUNDATE them with 5-6 minute commercial breaks. We in the INDUSTRY like scanning the dial during prolonged commercial breaks - so then how do we presume the listener doesn't> And if we KNOW the listener doesn't stick around, then how do we send our sales people into a client's place of business to sell commercials to them KNOWING if their spot's the 34d or 4th or 5th spot in a break, the listener's tuning it out?
The radio "industry" needs to convene - together - and map out the future of this industry. I don't profess to have all the answers, but there ARE solutions if these big guys, and the smaller guys, too, will admit that "the way it IS and the way it's BEEN" is going slowly kill the medium, and decide to change it.
Today, we're faced with a medium that is still functioning on a business model contrived in the FM heyday, instead of forging ahead with innovation; club DJs can spin and segue from mp4 (videos) using their own (or club's) imaging and yet you don't see radio stations moving ahead to do the same (what an incredible online presence this would be - never MIND how it could facilitate a local cable channel (remember when you could see music videos on TV?) - another revenue source possibility. Some stations and companies aren't actively embracing mobile potential either; not all sales departments know how to sell (or even bother trying to sell) stream spots on TOP of terrestrial, or weaving in text capabilities to lower spot loads by getting clients to reduce their :60s to :30s and :30s to :15s by pushing the listener to "text" for more info. The possibilities are endless, but you don't see "radio" trying to innovate, as a medium, really.
Actually, the "big guys" (CC, Cumulus, Entercom, Citadel) DO employ some of those methods, but not all. The "old way" is driving off listeners, so who cares about "ratings" when the ratings we're getting are a read of a smaller audience? Getting 20% of a demo isn't the same AMOUNT of people if the amount of people, overall, is dwindling, slowl.
Between Pandora, iPods, iPads, other internet entities, radio has to figure out how to continue doing business, pushing client-to-consumer, and with OUT running the consumer off because we INUNDATE them with 5-6 minute commercial breaks. We in the INDUSTRY like scanning the dial during prolonged commercial breaks - so then how do we presume the listener doesn't> And if we KNOW the listener doesn't stick around, then how do we send our sales people into a client's place of business to sell commercials to them KNOWING if their spot's the 34d or 4th or 5th spot in a break, the listener's tuning it out?
The radio "industry" needs to convene - together - and map out the future of this industry. I don't profess to have all the answers, but there ARE solutions if these big guys, and the smaller guys, too, will admit that "the way it IS and the way it's BEEN" is going slowly kill the medium, and decide to change it.
Ron Roberts said:
Keep in mind that none of those things really compete with OTA radio in any way, and for the most part are far worse in terms of the kind of national playlists or programming than OTA radio. If those devices were actually better, radio would have problems. But radio is holding its own against all that competition because it IS actually doing a pretty good job ascertaining what the audience wants and giving it to them. The thing that's "killing" the medium is a lot of overthinking, and a lot of demonizing devices (like iPods, iPads, cell phones) that aren't really players in the radio world. At some point very soon, the bloom will fall off the Pandora rose, as their users get tired of being hit with costs and ads, and as the content becomes more and more like OTA radio. That's what killed satellite, and it will kill Pandora as they seek more commercial sponsorships.
What baffles me is how I read here and other discussions that radio is in decline. Overall (other than AM listening) radio listening nationwide is up over the past ten years. Why? My guess is for what has made it popular in the past.. its free. In a rough economy, subscribing to Pandora, XM Sirius, whatever, will take the backseat to free.
TheBigA said:
Pandora has two models... free with very, very limited ad insertion, and paid with no ads.
In both cases, Pandora allows each user to name a few songs that are personal favorites, and it then uses those as seeds to create a format. The user can say "no" to specific songs and artists, and determine that the mix be newer or older in a timeline, among other things. After a few clicks, you can have a "station" pretty well adapted to personal taste. You can also create multiple stations for your moods, and play them separately.
And Pandora can be played off computers, iPads, smart phones, newer in-car devices, etc.
TVradioguru said:
The conventional wisdom is that satellite has a bigger playlist than FM. Yesterday I was in a restaurant that was playing Highway 16 from XM. Every single song was from the FM playlist. No deep cuts. No unknown artists. All big hits by top stars. I also didn't hear any talkative DJ. There was a voice every few songs, but he didn't say much. And I've been told that Highway 16 is one of the most listened-to XM channels. No wonder: It sounds like FM without commercials.
TVradioguru said:
Share with us the documentation that supports what the radio audience is... and how it is changing.
My personal survey method is rather inelegant. I look around in the retail outlets where I would expect to be able to purchase a radio receiver. For those of us who are fond of radio, it is NOT a pretty sight.
Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:
That's a good point, which is that you can't really buy radios any more. Meanwhile, the Consumer Electronics Association is complaining about inserting FM in cell phones. As I said in another post, the electronics manufacturers have done more to kill AM/FM radio than Clear Channel, buy ceasing development of new radios. Today's generation believes AM/FM radio comes with a car. It's not something you buy alone. Radio companies didn't do that. Electronics manufacturers did that. It's wrong, and bad for radio.
Picture the reaction you'll get at Best Buy and saying to the clerk, "where's your new radios?" Not a "must have" on the Christmas list.
About a year ago I decided I wanted to buy a modem. (I was actually a bit more picky than that... I wanted a modem that would also send and receive audio... as in "make a roll-your-own" answering machine.)
I wandered through several stores and ended up at a local Best Buy. I searched to store pretty thoroughly and finally a polished-and-pressed young man asked if I need help.
MODEM.
Over there --> pointing toward the LinkSys and other routers.
No no no. Not a CABLE MODEM... a telephone modem... as in a "dial up connection" modem.
He gave me this look... this "wat'cha been smoking" look... and assured me that in the history of the world there has never been anything on the face of the earth called a "telephone modem".
O.K. See'ya later Dude.
Come to think of.... I guess I was 18 one time.
I couldn't bring myself to assure him that when I worked for Best Buy we indeed sold modems, telephone modems, dial-up connection modems... and we sold software to connect with the world through that modem. He probably would not have believed me anyway.
I wandered through several stores and ended up at a local Best Buy. I searched to store pretty thoroughly and finally a polished-and-pressed young man asked if I need help.
MODEM.
Over there --> pointing toward the LinkSys and other routers.
No no no. Not a CABLE MODEM... a telephone modem... as in a "dial up connection" modem.
He gave me this look... this "wat'cha been smoking" look... and assured me that in the history of the world there has never been anything on the face of the earth called a "telephone modem".
O.K. See'ya later Dude.
Come to think of.... I guess I was 18 one time.
I couldn't bring myself to assure him that when I worked for Best Buy we indeed sold modems, telephone modems, dial-up connection modems... and we sold software to connect with the world through that modem. He probably would not have believed me anyway.
Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:
I just bought a new laptop. It doesn't have a modular connection for dial-up, and it doesn't have an internal modem. It has an internal wifi card. No dial-up.
I read somewhere that about 40% of the country still operates on dial-up. I know when I travel, I often need to use dial-up because there's no wifi. But not with this laptop.
- Status