Clear Channel dirty tricks

[evnlee]

In 2004, CC started putting AAR on various markets. At the time, CC was cheered and jeered for it's decisions.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/33767.html

Now that it is yanking some stations off, conspiracy theorists are stating that the only way it makes sense is if CC has some underlying motive, other then profits, for making the move.

Could CC have used AAR as cover, to deflect criticisms of it's 'buddy buddy' relationship with the GOP?

 

[steve90031]

I think you're right on target. However the format did end up succeeding in Portland and San Diego and CC found they could actually make money off of it. It was then rolled out across the country and it's had mixed results, with the reasons for the mixed results having been discussed ad nauseum on this board.

 

[buster2]

You can't have it both ways. Either CC was merely posturing by flipping some stations to libtalk because they are in bed with the GOP or they tried libtalk to see if it would be profitable. It can't be both.

I don't care how in bed with the GOP CC is or isn't, if they could make money on libtalk, they would - in each and every market where it works. Money speaks a WHOLE lot louder than party registration. I'm sure CC would program lunatic rants from Chinese communists if there was a billable audience for it. As it is, they gave libtalk a shot, and a lot of markets simply rejected it.

I'm always fascinated by people who think a corporation is in business to support an idealogy. No such thing exists (for very long). Those things are called think tanks and they don't make a profit. Corporations like Clear Channel are in the business of making money - period, end of story.

I don't care to defend CC - they are a carnivore and a blight on radio as far as I'm concerned. But not only does CC syndicate right-wing talkers, they program smooth jazz, sports talk, CHR, adult-oriented hits, etc. In other words, they program what people will listen to. If people were clamoring to listen to libtalk (and they're not, in most markets), CC would stick with it.

 

[NewsVet]

You can't have it both ways. Either CC was merely posturing by flipping some stations to libtalk because they are in bed with the GOP or they tried libtalk to see if it would be profitable. It can't be both.


I'm always fascinated by people who think a corporation is in business to support an idealogy. No such thing exists (for very long). Those things are called think tanks and they don't make a profit. Corporations like Clear Channel are in the business of making money - period, end of story.

No, it's not. News Corp, Rupert Murdoch's corporation, has owned the right-wing New York Post and the right-wing Weekly Standard for many years and both lose money year after year (the Post loses tens of millions each year). But both stay in business, not to make money, but to push Rupert's political agenda. The right-wing Washington Times also loses millions every year, but stays in business to push the Moonie political agenda. Murdoch's right-wing Fox News Channel also lost hundreds of millions of dollars for five years (almost twice as long as Air America has existed) before FNC finally turned a profit in 2001.

As for Clear Channel, it makes no sense to say that Portland has "accepted" libtalk and that equally liberal Boston has "rejected" it. Libtalk has succeeded in Portland because CC put it on a good signal and invested in a local morning show. Libtalk hasn't succeeded in Boston because CC put it on crappy signals and didn't put on any regular local programming. That's a real "end of story."

 

[Radio_Realist]

No, it's not.

Yes, it is. Read the quote you replied to, "Corporations like Clear Channel are in the business of making money - period, end of story." Until recently, Clear Channel was a public corporation owned by stockholders. It is the kind of corporation dedicated to simply making money. Rupert Murdoch, on the other hand, is more of a private individual who uses corporations as a means of shielding his money from taxation. Murdoch does what Murdoch was, because Murdoch's corporations exist to serve Murdoch.

Rupert Murdoch is a very wealthy man who chooses to spend his money as he sees fit. He can serve as an example of how any very wealthy man can choose to spend his money as he sees fit. But he is not an example that demonstrates that corporations owned by large numbers of stockholders must do what is best for the stockholders.

Libtalk has succeeded in Portland because CC put it on a good signal and invested in a local morning show. Libtalk hasn't succeeded in Boston because CC put it on crappy signals and didn't put on any regular local programming. That's a real "end of story."

Actually, the strength of the competition probably has more to do with it than anything else. No radio station (or other business, for that matter) has to be good to succeed. It only has to be better than its competition. Third-rate crappy programming can be number one in any market where the other stations are broadcasting fourth-rate crappy programming.

 

[NewsVet]

No, it's not.

Yes, it is. Read the quote you replied to, "Corporations like Clear Channel are in the business of making money - period, end of story." Until recently, Clear Channel was a public corporation owned by stockholders. It is the kind of corporation dedicated to simply making money. Rupert Murdoch, on the other hand, is more of a private individual who uses corporations as a means of shielding his money from taxation. Murdoch does what Murdoch was, because Murdoch's corporations exist to serve Murdoch.

Rupert Murdoch is a very wealthy man who chooses to spend his money as he sees fit. He can serve as an example of how any very wealthy man can choose to spend his money as he sees fit. But he is not an example that demonstrates that corporations owned by large numbers of stockholders must do what is best for the stockholders.

Libtalk has succeeded in Portland because CC put it on a good signal and invested in a local morning show. Libtalk hasn't succeeded in Boston because CC put it on crappy signals and didn't put on any regular local programming. That's a real "end of story."

Actually, the strength of the competition probably has more to do with it than anything else. No radio station (or other business, for that matter) has to be good to succeed. It only has to be better than its competition. Third-rate crappy programming can be number one in any market where the other stations are broadcasting fourth-rate crappy programming.

I have the strong impression that some of Clear Channel's local management people were committed to trying to make the libtalk format work and others were not, perhaps because of their political leanings.

As for your suggestion that Portland's other stations must be broadcasting "fourth-rate crappy programming" if they're being beaten by a libtalker, that programming looks almost exactly like the competition in Boston -- Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Savage, etc.

And before you refer me to my comments about local morning shows, the answer is that KPOJ was doing well even before it added a local morning show. For the first year or so of libtalk programming ALL of KPOJ's programs came from Air America, with the one exception of Ed Schultz for three hours a day.

 

[clichemoth]

In 2004, CC started putting AAR on various markets. At the time, CC was cheered and jeered for it's decisions.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/33767.html

Now that it is yanking some stations off, conspiracy theorists are stating that the only way it makes sense is if CC has some underlying motive, other then profits, for making the move.

Could CC have used AAR as cover, to deflect criticisms of it's 'buddy buddy' relationship with the GOP?

If that were the case, wouldn't they be adding more progtalkers now? I mean, the Dems do have control of the House and may still have control of the Senate (get well soon, Sen. Johnson), and ownership caps are still under review. If it were all a charade, why not continue it until they got what they wanted (presumably 2 more stations in the largest markets)?

No, they made a programming decision. They had AMs for which there weren't really any viable formats. Progressive talk looked like a hot new possibility. If the programming had been strong enough, it would have worked. There is a niche there, most of what's being offered hasn't filled that.

 

[mr_arbitron]

Clear Channel is bailing out of small markets, that's all.. The larger markets will still be subsidized (welfare) like in the instance of KLSD san diego. KLSD is upping it's power and going thru tests as I type. Just look at the market, if it's bum [EDIT] egypt, the welfare checks stop and format changes.. If it's a larger market, welfare will continue




[EDIT-profanity]

 

[RBA]

Clear Channel is bailing out of small markets, that's all.. The larger markets will still be subsidized (welfare) like in the instance of KLSD san diego. KLSD is upping it's power and going thru tests as I type. Just look at the market, if it's bum [EDIT] egypt, the welfare checks stop and format changes.. If it's a larger market, welfare will continue




[EDIT-profanity]

PLease educate me. What is this about welfare checks?

 

[jcolletta275]

I think he simply meant that Clear Channel continues to dole out money for their larger markets, preferring them over the smaller ones. It's not the best of analogies (as I'm sure even some of the crappiest-sounding and worst-rated smaller-market stations sell enough ad time to make the money needed to stay afloat), but it makes a good point. Cheap Channel simply isn't making the money they need to continue playing a crappy game of radio, so they're selling off the stations that don't make as much money for them, which translates to those stations below the top 100.

 

[Radio_Realist]

they're selling off the stations that don't make as much money for them, which translates to those stations below the top 100.

Consider that Clear Channel just had a change of ownership. If the company was bought as an investment, they're going to want to do everything they can to boost the P/E ratio, which means improving profit margins, not just profit dollars. Getting rid of profitable but low margin operations will help boost the P/E ratio, and that will make the stock more valuable when the new owners take it public again.

It's quite a common practice in businesses outside of radio.

 

[jcolletta275]

Yes, but again, it all comes back to the fact that you can't screw things up as badly as they have and still make money. In order to make money, they have to sell off some of the stations that are underperforming and some that are bringing in cash but aren't performing as well as others.

One always has to keep in mind that radio isn't just a business, it's a beast all it's own. When you ignore the beast and focus on the business side alone (as CC has for many years now), you're only screwing yourself over.

 

[SaltyDog]

You can't have it both ways. Either CC was merely posturing by flipping some stations to libtalk because they are in bed with the GOP or they tried libtalk to see if it would be profitable. It can't be both.

Sure it can be both. Where's the conflict? Theoretically, they could have flipped stations to appease members of Congress but at the same time thought "Hey, we can make money too."

I don't think that's what happened, but surely it's possible.

My completely unsubstantiated guess has always been that they flipped a bunch of stations to libtalk to blunt criticism and knew damn well they wouldn't make money. One other thing to consider: While the top management may be uniformly conservative, their middle-management ranks are not.

 

[SaltyDog]

News Corp, Rupert Murdoch's corporation, has owned the right-wing New York Post and the right-wing Weekly Standard for many years and both lose money year after year (the Post loses tens of millions each year). But both stay in business, not to make money, but to push Rupert's political agenda.

My first thought upon reading this was that it's probably not true. (Although a glance at your screen name made me think you might know what you're talking about.

I did a little Googling and an article in Business Week (although somewhat old) revealed that The Post does indeed lose money. However, I think you're on somewhat shaky ground when you assert a motivation.

"The Post has lost so much money for so long that it would have folded years ago if News Corp. applied the same profit-making rigor to the tabloid as it does to its other businesses. Could the Post turn a profit if the Daily News vanished? Daily News executives and many neutral observers believe the Murdochs are determined to find out. Says Martin Dunn, who long worked for News Corp. before joining the Daily News in 2003 as editorial director and deputy publisher: "I've been on the other side. I know that when News Corp. sets out to destroy someone, they go all out to do it."

"Lachlan Murdoch refuses to disclose the Post's annual loss -- pegged by outsiders at $15 million to $30 million -- but acknowledges that it widened when the weekday cover price was halved, to 25 cents, in 2000. It's all part of the plan, says Murdoch, who intends to restore the 50 cents cover price if and when the Post passes the Daily News in circulation. "We love the Post, but it's not a hobby," he says. "We very much care that it make money one day, and that it become as great a business as it is a newspaper."

"With $22 billion in revenues, News Corp. is so big that the Post's budget amounts to a rounding error."

Story dated February '05, for anyone interested, is here ---->
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_08/b3921114_mz016.htm

 

[Scribbler]

Right. So some brave souls in middle-management in some markets have tried to do what is necessary to make libtalk work and have succeeded in markets such as Portland and (conservative) San Diego. Others, perhaps to please upper management conservatives and/or because of their own political convictions, have done little or nothing to make libtalk succeed. Makes sense to me.

 

[SaltyDog]

Right. So some brave souls in middle-management in some markets have tried to do what is necessary to make libtalk work and have succeeded in markets such as Portland and (conservative) San Diego. Others, perhaps to please upper management conservatives and/or because of their own political convictions, have done little or nothing to make libtalk succeed. Makes sense to me.

Instead of forcing us to decipher this cryptic message, why not be direct? What are you saying?

 

[Scribbler]

Right. So some brave souls in middle-management in some markets have tried to do what is necessary to make libtalk work and have succeeded in markets such as Portland and (conservative) San Diego. Others, perhaps to please upper management conservatives and/or because of their own political convictions, have done little or nothing to make libtalk succeed. Makes sense to me.

Instead of forcing us to decipher this cryptic message, why not be direct? What are you saying?

What's cryptic about it? You pointed out that CC's upper management is "uniformly conservative" and that middle management may not be. I'm agreeing that those in middle management (at the cluster level) may not be conservative and therefore may actually try to make a go of libtalk. Others may NOT try to make a go of it -- to please San Antonio and/or because they're conservative themselves. I don't know how to say this any more clearly than that.

 

[Scribbler]

News Corp, Rupert Murdoch's corporation, has owned the right-wing New York Post and the right-wing Weekly Standard for many years and both lose money year after year (the Post loses tens of millions each year). But both stay in business, not to make money, but to push Rupert's political agenda.

My first thought upon reading this was that it's probably not true. (Although a glance at your screen name made me think you might know what you're talking about.

I did a little Googling and an article in Business Week (although somewhat old) revealed that The Post does indeed lose money. However, I think you're on somewhat shaky ground when you assert a motivation.

"The Post has lost so much money for so long that it would have folded years ago if News Corp. applied the same profit-making rigor to the tabloid as it does to its other businesses.

If Murdoch wanted to make money with the Post more than he wanted to push his right-wing agenda, he'd stop using it to push his right-wing agenda.

New York City is an overwhelmingly Democratic and liberal town and most New Yorkers don't want to read a paper that portrays the leaders of the Baker-Hamilton commission as "Surrender Monkeys," with a front-page picture of Baker and Hamilton in monkey suits. If he turned the Post into a liberal or politically neutral paper he could run the News out of business with his 25 cent virtual giveaways, but his politics prevent him from doing that.

 

[SaltyDog]

What's cryptic about it?

The sarcasm got in the way. Now I get it.

You pointed out that CC's upper management is "uniformly conservative" and that middle management may not be. I'm agreeing that those in middle management (at the cluster level) may not be conservative and therefore may actually try to make a go of libtalk. Others may NOT try to make a go of it -- to please San Antonio and/or because they're conservative themselves. I don't know how to say this any more clearly than that.

I would think, based on my experience as a GM, that whatever political motivations we have are completely overridden by fear of financial loss. I am somewhat conservative, but believe me, if I was handed a lib talk station, I'd work my ass off to make it work. Similarly, I know of plenty of liberal managers with conservative talkers. It's pretty much financially driven unless the manager is just an idiot.

 

[SaltyDog]

If Murdoch wanted to make money with the Post more than he wanted to push his right-wing agenda, he'd stop using it to push his right-wing agenda. New York City is an overwhelmingly Democratic and liberal town and most New Yorkers don't want to read a paper that portrays the leaders of the Baker-Hamilton commission as "Surrender Monkeys," with a front-page picture of Baker and Hamilton in monkey suits. If he turned the Post into a liberal or politically neutral paper he could run the News out of business with his 25 cent virtual giveaways, but his politics prevent him from doing that.

Okay, I get it now. You're a political animal and I'm a finance guy. Carry on.