Clear Channel is not gone and will never be forgotten. It has gone private so that it can do whatever it will do away from the prying eyes of the public. But it is still there and it is still a powerful force for greed within an industry that it has so grievously damaged. It might be that Lester and his boys are figuring a way to make satellite radio more like terrestrial radio in that advertising can once again determine what you will hear and when you will hear it. Clear Channel will never get out of media as long as there is money to be made there.alcapone said:
-
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
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Clear Channel
- Thread starter cceng1
- Start date
R
radiofriend1
Guest
redneckriviera said:Nice gesture, Pete.
I would venture, though, that the negative feeling that is generally felt throughout the industry toward your company has less to do with the performance of individual stations or clusters, or individual employees. Common sense says that there are plenty of terrific people working for CC, and many of them are producing great radio.
What Clear Channel has done to the industry, though, isn't so pretty. Lowry Mays & Tom Hicks hatched a brilliant scheme taking advantage of their access to Wall Street billions and DC politicians--involving an attack on federal regulations written to serve the common good (the public interest). Through their political connections, they rewrote those regulations to enable themselves to grab one-tenth of the nation's radio stations and one-fourth (one-third?) of the industry's revenue, then strip most of those stations of their primary asset: their people. They've single-handedly cast out tens of thousands of talented, creative people in order to finesse an exhorbitantly profitable exit.
So they basically trashed American radio in a little more than 10 years and walked away with $ Billions.
Nobody's really pissed at you or the folks at PAP/FSY. It's the A-holes you work for.
hey U should also blame the other companies too. U should see how many people got turfed when entercom and cumulus bought some of the cbs properties recently sold. just as is the case with mcdonald's or best buy or auto zone-U can find great stores around the country and lousy locations............radio is no different. strong local management and leadership is still what counts most.
your problem is obviously the general concept of corporate radio. get over it. U can't change time and consolidation happened almost 10 yrs ago
if U think U are that great at **LOCAL** radio, then go buy one of the 448 CC is selling and show us. in the meantime, U should know pissing & moaning that radio's not what it was *back in the day* will change absolutely NOTHING
Radiofriend1 says "hey U should also blame the other companies too. U should see how many people got turfed when entercom and cumulus bought some of the cbs properties recently sold."
Clear Channel did the dirty work; the others just followed their lead.
your problem is obviously the general concept of corporate radio. get over it. U can't change time and consolidation happened almost 10 yrs ago
I don't have any problem with corporate radio. I work for a great corporation. But under pre-1996 rules & regs, the industry was much more responsible. Under pre-1980 rules & regs, the industry valued both the people working within it and the people it served. Clear Channel worked through the eighties to deregulate the industry and rewrote specific regs allowing it to trash the industry and make a killing.
if U think U are that great at **LOCAL** radio, then go buy one of the 448 CC is selling and show us. in the meantime, U should know pissing & moaning that radio's not what it was *back in the day* will change absolutely NOTHING
Actually, I am that great at local radio. I've owned & operated a number of properties over the past 40 years and now run a very successful cluster of a half-dozen stations. Our company is looking at several clusters among the CC 448.
Yes, radio was a better industry before deregulation and before Clear Channel broke it open with the Telecom Bill of '96. But just as they recognized that rules & regs could be changed, the rest of us must recognize that those rules & regs can be reversed.
In the long run, radio's experience 1996-2006 may become a textbook case showing the importance of regulation in our capitalist system. Free enterprise run amok can be great for the handful of people at the very top, but it can be devastating for everyone else. A little oversight can be a good thing.
Clear Channel did the dirty work; the others just followed their lead.
your problem is obviously the general concept of corporate radio. get over it. U can't change time and consolidation happened almost 10 yrs ago
I don't have any problem with corporate radio. I work for a great corporation. But under pre-1996 rules & regs, the industry was much more responsible. Under pre-1980 rules & regs, the industry valued both the people working within it and the people it served. Clear Channel worked through the eighties to deregulate the industry and rewrote specific regs allowing it to trash the industry and make a killing.
if U think U are that great at **LOCAL** radio, then go buy one of the 448 CC is selling and show us. in the meantime, U should know pissing & moaning that radio's not what it was *back in the day* will change absolutely NOTHING
Actually, I am that great at local radio. I've owned & operated a number of properties over the past 40 years and now run a very successful cluster of a half-dozen stations. Our company is looking at several clusters among the CC 448.
Yes, radio was a better industry before deregulation and before Clear Channel broke it open with the Telecom Bill of '96. But just as they recognized that rules & regs could be changed, the rest of us must recognize that those rules & regs can be reversed.
In the long run, radio's experience 1996-2006 may become a textbook case showing the importance of regulation in our capitalist system. Free enterprise run amok can be great for the handful of people at the very top, but it can be devastating for everyone else. A little oversight can be a good thing.
P
Professor
Guest
Well, Mr. Riviera,
Your sentiments are interesting and well-meaning. I applaud you for them. It's just that they are a bit short-sighted and naive.
The TelComm Act of 1996 is not and was not the cause of the recent upheaval in the industry. It was merely a symptom -- a signpost -- of what was to come. This trend really began a quarter of a century ago (Gosh, has it been that long) with Docket 80-90, the FCC action that essentially reworked how FM signals are allocated. During this groundbreaking action, the FCC specifically stated that they were attempting to put on more stations than can viably exist in the marketplace. And, that's what they did.
Now, flash forward about 10 years. Stations are coming in. FMs in outlying areas are moving into bigger cities with the help of the new regs. We are looking at what the FCC predicted coming to pass. Now, the problem -- the FCC now doesn't have the stomach to see it happen. So, we get duopoly. And, frankly, the pre-1996 rules worked pretty well, if you ask me.
Sure. The floodgates opened in 1996. But, change isn't always a bad thing. Your basic premise here is that the public is being damaged. I am not sure I buy that. With these rules, we have a plethora of stations on that simply could not exist on their own. I posit that the public is BETTER served with more choices than with less. Sure, these choices are not the full-service varieties of your youth. But, they don't need to be. Media consumers have choices they didn't have in those days. Radio has become a jukebox not just because it's cheap; it's because that's what listeners expect. Entertainment is everywhere. Radio cannot and should not be all things to all people.
Want regulation? Great. Let's try it like Canada. In Canada, in order to get a signal, one has to submit an economic plan. Without one, no station. That's why even in big Canadian cities there are holes in the dial. Is that in the public's best interest? I doubt it. Choice is good, even in Canada (who wants maple syrup every freakin' day?!).
If Clear Channel or its progeny are not serving the public or finding a market, the market will make the determination. When listeners stop listening, and go to their iPods, satellite, TV, or whatever, Clear Channel will pay the price. So far, it largely hasn't happened. Now, dumb moves like blowing up WGST's local content might hasten that, but the jury is still out there.
I am not here to make excuses for CCU. I just understand how this stuff works. These changes are painful for all of us. But, to point fingers and expect our benefactors in DC to bail us out is simply facile.
Oh, and to roll back the regs? Gosh, what a legal mess. Let's start with a chat about the takings clause of the 5th Amendment and work up from there. Yikes.
-Prof.
Your sentiments are interesting and well-meaning. I applaud you for them. It's just that they are a bit short-sighted and naive.
The TelComm Act of 1996 is not and was not the cause of the recent upheaval in the industry. It was merely a symptom -- a signpost -- of what was to come. This trend really began a quarter of a century ago (Gosh, has it been that long) with Docket 80-90, the FCC action that essentially reworked how FM signals are allocated. During this groundbreaking action, the FCC specifically stated that they were attempting to put on more stations than can viably exist in the marketplace. And, that's what they did.
Now, flash forward about 10 years. Stations are coming in. FMs in outlying areas are moving into bigger cities with the help of the new regs. We are looking at what the FCC predicted coming to pass. Now, the problem -- the FCC now doesn't have the stomach to see it happen. So, we get duopoly. And, frankly, the pre-1996 rules worked pretty well, if you ask me.
Sure. The floodgates opened in 1996. But, change isn't always a bad thing. Your basic premise here is that the public is being damaged. I am not sure I buy that. With these rules, we have a plethora of stations on that simply could not exist on their own. I posit that the public is BETTER served with more choices than with less. Sure, these choices are not the full-service varieties of your youth. But, they don't need to be. Media consumers have choices they didn't have in those days. Radio has become a jukebox not just because it's cheap; it's because that's what listeners expect. Entertainment is everywhere. Radio cannot and should not be all things to all people.
Want regulation? Great. Let's try it like Canada. In Canada, in order to get a signal, one has to submit an economic plan. Without one, no station. That's why even in big Canadian cities there are holes in the dial. Is that in the public's best interest? I doubt it. Choice is good, even in Canada (who wants maple syrup every freakin' day?!).
If Clear Channel or its progeny are not serving the public or finding a market, the market will make the determination. When listeners stop listening, and go to their iPods, satellite, TV, or whatever, Clear Channel will pay the price. So far, it largely hasn't happened. Now, dumb moves like blowing up WGST's local content might hasten that, but the jury is still out there.
I am not here to make excuses for CCU. I just understand how this stuff works. These changes are painful for all of us. But, to point fingers and expect our benefactors in DC to bail us out is simply facile.
Oh, and to roll back the regs? Gosh, what a legal mess. Let's start with a chat about the takings clause of the 5th Amendment and work up from there. Yikes.
-Prof.
Nice analysis, Professor. Do you teach this stuff? I'm also faculty at one of the Big 10 schools, so I've been required to review more broadcast history than I otherwise might. Can't stand up front and wing it.
Yes, 80-90 played a role, but most of the "viability" crisis (1989-ish) was manufactured. Remember that the deregulation of the financial industry and elimination of station trafficking prohibitions brought on a flood of acquisitions by non-broadcasters paying way too much. When they predictably went upside-down, Hicks & Mays saw their opening and used the NAB to convince the FCC that the industry was in trouble and needed the caps lifted. Hicks got the very first LMA, in Port Arthur. And he & Lowry were poised to strike in '96 because they had written the legislation. So Tom grabbed 600 stations, Mays grabbed 600 and the two Texans merged 2 years later, with Lowry in charge and Tom as the largest stockholder. We'll never prove it, but it sure looks like many of those "groups" that emerged and disappeared in the nineties were "pass-through" firms set up to gather stations for Tom & Lowry.
How else could they buy 1,200 stations in 520 business days? Brilliant.
Yes, 80-90 brought more choice. Nothing wrong with that. But those allocations were intended to serve small communities previously without local FM stations--until existing broadcasters got the rules changed to allow them to be moved-in to larger cities. There is no evidence to indicate that those additional stations could not operate profitably--back then, or today. Some broadcasters insist that they must make a profit of 40% or 50% to make it worthwhile. My own company generates about 45 percent in cash flow annually, but it doesn't NEED to. Our Chairman is a billionaire. He doesn't NEED the money. Could all our stations operate profitably if run independently? Sure. Not at margins of 45%, but still at a comfortable profit. They did just fine before consolidation, and would do just fine again. It's only been 10 years--not a hundred.
Rules & regs. They've been changed to allow abuse; they can be changed to end the abuse.
Yes, 80-90 played a role, but most of the "viability" crisis (1989-ish) was manufactured. Remember that the deregulation of the financial industry and elimination of station trafficking prohibitions brought on a flood of acquisitions by non-broadcasters paying way too much. When they predictably went upside-down, Hicks & Mays saw their opening and used the NAB to convince the FCC that the industry was in trouble and needed the caps lifted. Hicks got the very first LMA, in Port Arthur. And he & Lowry were poised to strike in '96 because they had written the legislation. So Tom grabbed 600 stations, Mays grabbed 600 and the two Texans merged 2 years later, with Lowry in charge and Tom as the largest stockholder. We'll never prove it, but it sure looks like many of those "groups" that emerged and disappeared in the nineties were "pass-through" firms set up to gather stations for Tom & Lowry.
How else could they buy 1,200 stations in 520 business days? Brilliant.
Yes, 80-90 brought more choice. Nothing wrong with that. But those allocations were intended to serve small communities previously without local FM stations--until existing broadcasters got the rules changed to allow them to be moved-in to larger cities. There is no evidence to indicate that those additional stations could not operate profitably--back then, or today. Some broadcasters insist that they must make a profit of 40% or 50% to make it worthwhile. My own company generates about 45 percent in cash flow annually, but it doesn't NEED to. Our Chairman is a billionaire. He doesn't NEED the money. Could all our stations operate profitably if run independently? Sure. Not at margins of 45%, but still at a comfortable profit. They did just fine before consolidation, and would do just fine again. It's only been 10 years--not a hundred.
Rules & regs. They've been changed to allow abuse; they can be changed to end the abuse.
Radio Flyer said:An Open Invitation
For those of you that speak negatively of Clear Channel Radio, you are cordially invited to a facility tour of Clear Channel Panama City. You are invited to talk to anyone on our staff about what they think about working for Clear Channel Radio. I will personally take you to visit our local Chambers of Commerce, local charities, the local Ad Fed, or any other local organization of your choosing to ask their opinion of their relationship with Clear Channel Radio Panama City. I will share all valid comments verbatim on this site.
Pete Norden
Market Manager - Clear Channel Panama City
850.769.1408 x 228
What an offer. Mr. Norden, you are a class act.
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.