• 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 destroyed radio? Yep, author says

B

BoredOp0930

Guest
My younger brother clipped this article out of the Chronicle-Telegram some time ago(I don't remember seeing it) and gave it to me yesterday-

"The name Clear Channel became shorthand for everything wrong with terrestrial(non-satellite) radio: lack of diversity, repetitious music, boring programming, too many commercials, censorship, jingoism, ad nauseam.

Writer Alec Foege's interest in the subject of radio in general and Clear channel in particular was piqued when he became aware of the uniformity of radio stations' programming during a longish family car trip. He wanted to know why the music was so bland and over-familiar. He begins with a brief history of Top 40 radio, the company that later became Clear Channel, and it's founder, Texan Lowry Mays. He knew nothing about the broadcast industry, according to Foege, but was a shrewd and opportunistic businessman who viewed radio as a unique industry with unparalleled potential for growth"...

The article goes on to say about how Mays sought efficiencies by eliminating various redundancies such as physical facilities, and management, administrative, and engineering staff. It continues with the downside of the cost-cutting becoming very apparent, earning the company the moniker of "Cheap Channel", and rightfully so, by the elimination of incumbent talent, promotion of lower-paid employees, and the practice of "voice-tracking".

The article concludes with a very brief summary about failed media mega-mergers, how Clear Channel itself is dissembling, and the vitality of radio as a local medium will likely never return.

The book in question is called "Right of the Dial: The Rise of Clear Channel and the Fall of Commercial Radio", by Alec Foege.

Did anyone read this book, or see this article elsewhere? What is YOUR opinion? Do you agree or disagree?
 
Given the nature of the beast, meaning broadcast radio, if it hadn't been Clear Channel, I think it would have been someone else. With all the deregulation, all the operators found ways to cut corners which took the live human element out of it.

My $.02
 
Farid Suleheim (CEO of Citadel) is just as bad - if not outright worse - as a operator than the Mays brothers ever will be. Disney made off like bandits when they sold the ABC station group over to him.

- nate81 aka Myron -
 
WIXY-

I agree with you. One of the conglomerates would have gutted radio sooner, or not much later. It was just more apparent when Clear Channel did it because of the sheer size of the company. I was told of the automated cart system that The Wave had when it was a new station(does anyone remember, "Cleveland's COOL FM..."?).

While I don't care for Clear Channel's business practices, I did work with some great folks at Clear Channel Parkersburg. The suits from Cincinnati, however, were another story...
 
Based on the fact that, "One of the conglomerates would have gutted radio sooner, or not much later", what could have stopped the rape and pillage?
 
Two watershed events that fit your criteria, casting no aspersions on the statement or the opportunists: the Telecom Act, and when digital storage became cheaper than tape on a cost-per-minute basis.

The computer had been around for a while. It wasn't cost-effective until the storage became cheap.

JbC
 
YES!

I'd say the Telecommunications Act of 1994 not having passed into law would have staved off a LOT of the bleeding. John is correct in the statement that digital storage became cheaper(P.C.s became more "powerful", as it were).

I believe that those two elements helped in the disintegration of radio; the "conglomerates" just simply seen an opportunity. Right or wrong, the outcome is still the same...
 
If the "good old days" were the early 70s, then several factors

1)Full fidelity satellite delivery, eliminating reel to reel tape automation
2)Docket 80-90, placing signals on the air that could not be self supporting and driving spot rates below "dollar a holler" in many smaller markets"
3)More powerful PCs, digital storage, better transmitters that did not need as much maintenance
4) ISDN lines, the ability to email audio files
5) 1996 Telecom. Could you see any company runnin 1200 stations if we were still playing music on carts and automating with reel to reel tape? I do believe with all the newer signals on the air, some consolodation was neccesary but it was alllowed to become a feeding frenzy
6) New media choices.
 
Johnboy Crenshaw said:
Two watershed events that fit your criteria, casting no aspersions on the statement or the opportunists: the Telecom Act, and when digital storage became cheaper than tape on a cost-per-minute basis.

The computer had been around for a while. It wasn't cost-effective until the storage became cheap.

JbC
Click to expand...

Absolutely, JB.

And when the storage became cheap, it became very easy to "automate" (think:voicetrack) shifts like nights and overnights which (with, maybe the exception of CHR formats at night) were never, or rarely profitable, given most radio advertising focused greatly on 6 AM-7 PM. At least, that's where the "highest unit rate" would be.
 
I don't think the computer or WANs are to blame for the destruction of radio's integrity. This would be like blaming a poor construction job on the Stanley hammer and the Black & Decker saw used to make the house.

Like every area of corporate business there are pockets where the envelope is pushed. Like most business people the Mays family manipulated the system for their own profit. Same with the officers of the other "big" companies.

Who I think is chiefly to blame is our regulation bodies, such as Congress, and the F.C.C. I think it's safe to say that both bodies could be compared to the fat cop in the doughnut shop who is oblivious to his own police car being broken into, and the shotgun in the car being used in the commissioning of the crime.

I think people could have been more tolerant if there was some integrity in the business. Regulation to operate in the public interest, news commitment, local staffing and ability to contact a station, among other things. How has radio changed for me in the past decade.

If you want a PSA for your school function or civic group, there is NO avenue to get anything on the air. You are discouraged if you stop at a station and ask them to air something, that is, if there is anyone at the station.

News is non existent in many communities, which is good for TV and print, but it points out what I have long said about the reasons for the decline in cumes.

Weather? HA! Last week we had a major storm roll through the area. Our home was out of power for 4 days. Prior, during, and post storm you heard 12 in a row, and canned weather forecasts stating "change of rain today, 70%, some storms may be severe." This from a station some 20 minutes after the storm had passed by leaving trees littering the roadways, and power out to traffic signals.

Ironically, a tornado warning had come down the EAS seven minutes prior, but after the last EOMs were sent, it was back to music.l You have to wonder if it got anyone's attention at the station.

I truly believe that the big corporations are like the slum lords in communities that let their tenants suffer. And I think that the government is like the zoning boards that see the run down roach infested row houses and do nothing till someone dies. Let's face the fact, nobody has technically broken the law. They have skirted it, and manipulated the rules, but not broken them. So that leaves the blame on the system.

I'm reminded of a conversation that I had with the PD of one of the conglomerates over the fact that they didn't send a warning about a tornado. Quote, "we didn't get it (EAS from NWS), so we were not obligated to send it or warn anyone." I then asked if he did not see the storm approaching, and he replied "Heck yeah, and I hid in the basement." This was an LP1 station.

Sorry, I blame the people who should be smart enough to have safeguards in place to protect the public from misuse. I also have contempt for those who have a vested interest in the business knowing that their system is flawed, or trying to justify that negligence or lapses in ethics are excused through their personal profit.
 
Fred-

EXACTLY!!

You've NAILED it right on the head. However, you've left out companies like BAS broadcasting, who buys up smaller stations and then proceeds to drag their you-know-what through them by gutting them, and spewing satellite garbage from the once LOCAL staffed station. Also, stations USED to listen to their LOCAL audience's feedback; now, they pay some consultant 3,000 miles away who knows NOTHING about the community that the station is at(This NEVER made one iota of sense to me, but what do I know-I'm just a board-op).

Horrible.
 
Last time I looked BAS was still locally staffed. I still see quite a few cars at their place which indicates employees. As far as satellite programming stations, any operator who buys a former Clear Channel station has to try and make that station operate within reasonable means since very few have CC's deep pockets. And the last time I checked music is music no matter where it comes from. The listening public makes the ultimate choice thus making a station successful or not. Live or local DJ's never make any of the music choices, nor do they choose what to say. And in large companies such as CC you can hear the same format and music choices in many different cities accross the US and sometimes the same DJ. Is that any better?


BoredOp0930 said:
Fred-

EXACTLY!!

You've NAILED it right on the head. However, you've left out companies like BAS broadcasting, who buys up smaller stations and then proceeds to drag their you-know-what through them by gutting them, and spewing satellite garbage from the once LOCAL staffed station. Also, stations USED to listen to their LOCAL audience's feedback; now, they pay some consultant 3,000 miles away who knows NOTHING about the community that the station is at(This NEVER made one iota of sense to me, but what do I know-I'm just a board-op).

Horrible.
Click to expand...
 
FredRichards said:
Weather? HA! Last week we had a major storm roll through the area. Our home was out of power for 4 days. Prior, during, and post storm you heard 12 in a row, and canned weather forecasts stating "change of rain today, 70%, some storms may be severe." This from a station some 20 minutes after the storm had passed by leaving trees littering the roadways, and power out to traffic signals.

Ironically, a tornado warning had come down the EAS seven minutes prior, but after the last EOMs were sent, it was back to music.l You have to wonder if it got anyone's attention at the station.
Click to expand...

In our area, I think EAS does a pretty good job and if your box is set right it can transmit the warning very quickly after the NWS sends it. However, EAS does not provide updates on the storm until the warning expires -- typically 45 minutes to an hour after issuance. So, if a listener tunes in just after the EAS message terminates they will likely never hear anything about it.

Eric
 
Jason Roberts said:
Johnboy Crenshaw said:
Two watershed events that fit your criteria, casting no aspersions on the statement or the opportunists: the Telecom Act, and when digital storage became cheaper than tape on a cost-per-minute basis.

The computer had been around for a while. It wasn't cost-effective until the storage became cheap.

JbC
Click to expand...

Absolutely, JB.

And when the storage became cheap, it became very easy to "automate" (think:voicetrack) shifts like nights and overnights which (with, maybe the exception of CHR formats at night) were never, or rarely profitable, given most radio advertising focused greatly on 6 AM-7 PM. At least, that's where the "highest unit rate" would be.
Click to expand...

Evening talk was profitable with various program formats like trivia shows, dating shows, community talk, current events...this was before all the mega syndication...Also, local "Love Song" shows in the evening were pretty popular "with the ladies" and with advertisers too.

But you are entirely correct that the high rate focus would be on 6a-7p.
 
There has always been some way to "automate." Back in the 60's and 70's it was those behemoths from Schaeffer and IGM with cart carousels and/or reel-to-reel decks. Later, satellite programming with call letters and commercials inserted locally. Then came voicetracking. I even heard of one low-budget FM operation in southern Ohio that rigged up an old VM changer with a stack of albums. While the tone-arm was recycling and the next record dropping it would trip a cart machine to play an id to fill the dead air. While some herald voicetracking as the work of the devil, it still sounds better than its predecessor technology and most listeners can't tell the difference. If a station wants to do it cheaper.... they'll find a way..... and that once included paying me $1.25 an hour to rack up tapes and play carts back in the day.
 
I've read both books--the other one is called "Clear Vision" by Reed Bunzel and is the "authorized" company profile (this means they paid Bunzel to write a complimentary book about them). Since neither author is a radio guy, they miss the good stuff.

The good stuff is that Lowry Mays fixed the system from his position as Chairman of the NAB Board of Directors... wrote the draft legislation to eliminate ownership caps... and with the inside info blitzed the rest of us and scooped up 1200 radio stations before anyone else figured out the game. Then he stripped them down--getting rid of thousands of people--to create what looked like cash flow, cast aside the losers and sold the whole kit & kaboodle for $18 billion.

Too many radio guys are focused on how voice-tracking took their jobs away. The big picture is that Lowry screwed us all for megabucks and most of us haven't connected the dots, yet. He'll be dead by the time the manure hits the fan, and his grandkids will still be laughing at us from their yachts.

Read the books, then start connecting the dots.
 
sono, you were making $1.25 for racking up tapes and playing carts.....didn't know Clear Channel was paying that well two years ago!
 
BoredOp0930 said:
YES!

I'd say the Telecommunications Act of 1994 not having passed into law would have staved off a LOT of the bleeding. John is correct in the statement that digital storage became cheaper(P.C.s became more "powerful", as it were).

I believe that those two elements helped in the disintegration of radio; the "conglomerates" just simply seen an opportunity. Right or wrong, the outcome is still the same...
Click to expand...

You mean the Telecommunications Act of 1996
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom