Do you want to save this business or not?

[Roger That]

This thread is now eight pages long.

And like every other thread, has turned into 2-4 people arguing over the exact same things as before, as if anything will change each others' opinion.

I wish people would stop starting threads like this. It never ends up constructive. It's always just finger-pointing and blame game.

 

[aunti-terrestrial]

People should absolutely be allowed to discuss issues, but yes, when someone decides they're going to bombard the thread so that their posts outnumber other posters 3:1, it effectively shuts down the discussion for everybody else. Censorship via the scenic route!

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

People should absolutely be allowed to discuss issues, but yes, when someone decides they're going to bombard the thread so that their posts outnumber other posters 3:1, it effectively shuts down the discussion for everybody else. Censorship via the scenic route!

I realize there have been some computer system problems at Radio-Info lately, and sometimes I cannot get a screen of any kind to come up, but I have yet to have messages appear on my screen WITHOUT both the "Reply" link and the "Quote" link visible and active.

I fully acknowledge that a few of us do a lot of posting and that there are a handful of posters who insist on one-up-ing time after time. BUT, we seem to be missing your wisdom on the topic. You have to sift through a lot of bones on these threads in hopes of turning up a valuable piece of meat now and then..... but it does happen. So, for that reason I tolerate the bombardments as best I can.

Come and join us in the conversation. Maybe YOU want to save this business... and maybe you have a great suggestion.

 

[aunti-terrestrial]

People should absolutely be allowed to discuss issues, but yes, when someone decides they're going to bombard the thread so that their posts outnumber other posters 3:1, it effectively shuts down the discussion for everybody else. Censorship via the scenic route!

I realize there have been some computer system problems at Radio-Info lately, and sometimes I cannot get a screen of any kind to come up, but I have yet to have messages appear on my screen WITHOUT both the "Reply" link and the "Quote" link visible and active.

I fully acknowledge that a few of us do a lot of posting and that there are a handful of posters who insist on one-up-ing time after time. BUT, we seem to be missing your wisdom on the topic. You have to sift through a lot of bones on these threads in hopes of turning up a valuable piece of meat now and then..... but it does happen. So, for that reason I tolerate the bombardments as best I can.

Come and join us in the conversation. Maybe YOU want to save this business... and maybe you have a great suggestion.

Looking back through my post histories, my opinions should be clear. There are plenty of threads where I've stated those opinions, and will certainly be others. I just don't see the bombardments as being productive, and in fact, I truly believe that some people abuse the boards in order to put up barriers for others who don't feel like sifting through their sludge day in, day out, ad nauseum. We can't even talk about a four-alarm fire in a disadvantaged part of our town without one of them coming in and telling us that if those poverty-stricken people really wanted information about what was burning in their backyards, they could always go online or watch cable TV, because the "news radio" station best served the community by rolling syndication while their largest advertiser's store burned overnight.

Want my best suggestion? Keep posting your experiences and keep using this board to network with others who also want changes. When we rise up en masse and demand that our politicians re-regulate portions of the industry, then and only then can we protect the limited spectrum and return it to the people, instead of reserving it to add to the wealth of a few greedy individuals who took advantage of a weak political climate in order to hijack it from the citizens and communities who actually "own" it.

Now, I wait for a flurry of "Can't do! Can't do!" posts from those whose personal wealth means far more to them than the lives of the listeners (what listeners are left) or advertisers (what advertisers are left) who give them something to sell and someone to hear the spots. In 3...2...cue the consultant!

 

[nightfly61]

The answer is NO. Corporate wants their salespeople to sell a jockless, near staff-less station. Let them fail miserably.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

The answer is NO. Corporate wants their salespeople to sell a jockless, near staff-less station. Let them fail miserably.

O.K. As the guy says: let's make this a NO SPIN zone!

How many corporations have you actually talked to about this?

How many corporations have this policy.

You're not blowing smoke are you?

How many corporations can you name who are using this policy you described?

 

[TheBigA]

When we rise up en masse and demand that our politicians re-regulate portions of the industry, then and only then can we protect the limited spectrum and return it to the people,

You gotta know that I laugh out loud every time I read things like that.

For several reasons:

What's stopping you from doing it right now? Rise up, walk out the front door, drive down to DC, and demand your rightful part of the spectrum. Go ahead. Make my day. But you're waiting for someone else to do it for you. You'll sign the petition, but you won't initiate the action.

When was the last time the government did something for "the people?" Would you call the banking bail-out "for the people?" How about the auto bail out? Who typically benefits from new regulations? Look at the performance tax the RIAA is championing. They say it's for the artists. Yet the labels get the majority of the money.

Then you say "return it to the people." Hmmm. Which people? The insurance companies like Nationwide and National Life that used to own it? The electronics companies like Westinghouse, Crosley, and RCA? Jacor and Shamrock? AMFM, RKO, and MetroMedia? Are they the downdrodden masses, yearning to breathe free?

Do you know who benefited from the original Radio Act of 1928? The radio companies. Do you know who lost? The amateur radio operators and hobbyists. Regulation took radio AWAY from the people and into the hands of professionals. What makes you think re-regulation will put it back into the hands of the people? No one in government wants to see media in the hands of "the people."

You want to return the airwaves to the people? Go and volunteer for your local community radio station. THAT is radio "by and for the people." It's democracy in action. Everyone has a voice, and no one listens. You don't need any re-regulation. It's there in front of you right now. Except no one gets paid. But since people who get paid are greedy, it shouldn't matter. Do it for the love of radio. You want to save this business or not? No one's gonna do it for you. You have to do it yourself.

So go ahead and rise up in the name of the people. What a load of crap.

 

[adma]

You want to return the airwaves to the people? Go and volunteer for your local community radio station. THAT is radio "by and for the people." It's democracy in action. Everyone has a voice, and no one listens. You don't need any re-regulation. It's there in front of you right now. Except no one gets paid. But since people who get paid are greedy, it shouldn't matter. Do it for the love of radio. You want to save this business or not? No one's gonna do it for you. You have to do it yourself.

So go ahead and rise up in the name of the people. What a load of crap.

Well, I see your point...but again, the "no one listens" point galls. Though maybe not so re much today as re the recent past, when the kinds of "no one" who listened to such radio happened to be, well, think of the old saw about how the first Velvet Underground record only sold so many copies but every one of its purchasers started a band. That is, the figurative "no one" who listened to or had faith in such volunteer-based radio happens to, well, run Washington now.

But as even you've admitted, radio *is* hurting, not least because of the mass ability to control one's own entertainment choices. Thanks to technology, *everyone's* a "nobody" these days, because they're "programming" just for themselves. And it doesn't matter whether the content is "somebody" or not.

The trouble with radio as with so much traditional media is...people got smart. They knew how to work around the system.

We've seen it before, in Soviet Europe in the 1980s. The regimes in charge were so full of themselves, they failed to see how there was an underground economy, an underground network out there, how there were burblings beneath the surface, and how *nobody*--except in the name of self-preservation--took "the system" seriously anymore.

So, radio, as a "mass medium", is dealing with a shrinking pool of "mass audience"--shrinking in numbers, and in brain cells. And in principle, the winners in this game are the "nobodies".

Though maybe the forces in charge of radio might claim they're winning through "controlled shrinkage", and that their present audience composition is more "efficient" with less "dead wood" than in the past. Superserving the pigeons and easy marks, one can call it...

 

[SirRoxalot]

I don't know about the populace "rising up", but I think that the consolidators should be a whole lot more concerned about three things:

1. One or more large shareholders who got screwed files a class-action suit against one or more of the consolidators.

2. The incoming group of FCC commissioners decide that what's happened since 1996 is NOT good for either the people, or for business. They've got plenty of information to wade through from the hearings that have been held around the country. Anybody want to speculate on what direction they'll take?

3. Congress, spurred by changes in the entire telecom industry since 1996, amends the Telecom Act of 1996, or creates an entirely new Telecom Act. There are a lot of issues beyond radio that need to be revisited, and both major telecom companies and some consumer groups are lobbying for changes. Radio could get caught up in any major revisions.

We're a long ways from finished with spectrum reallocation and conversion from analog to digital through the telecom industry. How radio is affected remains to be seen.

And, of course, bankruptcy looms large on the horizon for several of the large players...

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

When I got into the business, radio was indeed different than it is today. That is not a bold statement. It is both amusing and maddening to hear all the repeated claims as to what specifically has created a situation where both people IN the radio industry, and some people on the outside who are listeners and consumers of radio are prone to have complaints, often illustrated with memories of times gone by.

Let me offer on observation, an opinion about something that has changed that I don't remember being expressed quite this way as we throw rocks at the FCC, the conglomerate, etc. This is NOT an argument that we should go BACK to policy of the past. This is a challenge to come up with a modern era solution, or simply write off one of the characteristics of broadcasting as we knew it.

When I got in the business, an application to operate a station included a statement, a commitment by the applicant as to what the programming would be. We know law then and law now would indicate that the FCC DOES NOT CONTROL OR DICTATE programming. But the expectation back in the 1950s and 1960s was that you would justify adding one more license to a market by specifying what you would have a programming. It was expected that if you intended to program exactly what was already being offered, the existing licensee(s) would file a protest that you were just being duplicative, and there was no need for you to be granted the license. So in the typical small town if a station was there providing typical middle-of-the road programming, the new applicant would typically specify that he/she was going to play "cowboy music" for instance. In a larger market you would specify that your new station would fill the unmet needs of some ethnic community. Now the FCC did not control your programming by telling you how to program country music or how to meet the needs of an ethnic community, but failing to live up to some good faith effort to do what you promised meant there was the possibility of a lot of legal expense defending against the renewal protests.

Today every licensee, no matter how significant the power and frequency of the facility or how puny the power and frequency is free to program whatever, and challenge all existing program formats. So if I go into a city and buy an A.M. station down at 1580 on the dial with 1,000 watts (or maybe less) and I begin programming to the Korean audience or maybe the Harp music Hard Shell Baptists, or the soccer enthusiasts and I do well at it and begin making money, what is going to happen next? In today's business and regulatory climate I can expect four other stations to jump in and program the same thing and they don't even have to notify the FCC or anyone else of their intentions.

Some of the things we who have been around long enough to have some memories of radio of days gone by can indeed remember can never survive or reappear today unless we can find some way we are as a society willing to give someone a protected niche. That is certainly contrary to the mood of the nation today.

 

[TheBigA]

1. One or more large shareholders who got screwed files a class-action suit against one or more of the consolidators.

Already happened. Not something easily proved. It's clearly stated in every stock prospectus that there are risks in buying stocks. The fact that the entire industry (not just radio) is in trouble makes specific lawsuits really difficult to prove.

2. The incoming group of FCC commissioners decide that what's happened since 1996 is NOT good

I think the FCC has felt that way for a long time, but can't do anything about it. The FCC doesn't legislate. It regulates. So they have to work within the framework of the law. That doesn't give them the ability to tighten ownership rules, force out certain owners, or come up with a lot of regulations that interfere with a licensee's first amendment rights. They haven't been able to come up with any useful laws related to their two main agendas: Diversity and localism. This has been through ten years and several administrations. Radio is a very very small part of what the FCC does. They have far bigger fish to fry.

3. Congress, spurred by changes in the entire telecom industry since 1996, amends the Telecom Act of 1996, or creates an entirely new Telecom Act.

Sure. Look at the great job they did the last time they took that on. What makes you think they'll do a better job this time? Then look at their list of priorities, starting with the economy, war, health care, education, and the environment. Where do you place radio ownership on that list? Be realistic.

As for bankruptcy, who cares? You want the current owners to be punished. Filing for bankruptcy isn't punishment. It absolves them of any obligations. That's what they want. Its their Boards of Directors who keep them from filing. But I bet the CEOs would gladly file tomorrow if they could. They've already cashed out. Bankruptcy doesn't require them to return any money. So what's the point?

But let's look at that option. Radio companies file for bankruptcy. The courts come in to run things. What do the courts know about radio programming? What does the government know about radio programming? Have you ever listened to the VOA, the government-run radio service? Would you want the VOA to run Clear Channel? Do you really think it would lead to improvement? Do you think the government is going to require more DJs and invest in programming? Have you ever worked for the government?

Look, all you guys remind me of the little boy running to his mama every time the big bully comes around. "Mommy, make him stop!" As my father once told me, at some point, you have to grow up and fight your own battles. Mommy isn't going to come in and shut down the big bad radio owners. And even if she did, who is going to replace them? A new bunch of people you won't like. Until you take the bull by the horns and actually become an owner or program supplier, nothing will change.

Read the subject line of this 9 page thread. It says "Do you want to save this business or not." The key word is YOU. It doesn't talk about running to mommy or Congress or the FCC or the stockholders. It says YOU. What do YOU do to save this business. There are things people can do. Start with making the best radio possible. If you don't like who you're working for, quit. If you want to create great local programming, start a company and offer it to stations at a price that makes your content cheaper than what they can get from anyone else. If commercial broadcasting is too frustrating, get into non-commercial broadcasting. I've been there, and it comes with its own set of frustrations. Start your own LPFM station. Move to a small market where there are no consolidators. I can give you a list. The weather in most of them is better than Buffalo. Although North Dakota isn't an improvement. Lots of options if you're really serious about saving the business. But waiting for someone else to do what you want isn't very practical or very likely.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Your continual efforts to make this a "me vs. you" arguement, and to make this an INDIVIDUAL discussion instead of a broader discussion of the industry as a whole is simply an attempt to divert attention from the real problems that radio faces AS AN INDUSTRY.

My personal situation is really irrelevant to the discussion. Suggesting that everyone who disagrees with your corporate radio philosophy should abandon commercial radio and offer there services for free to community broadcasters is not a solution for either individuals, companies, or listeners.

Advising everyone to get into ownership in an attempt to control their own destiny is equally impractical. Most of us who work in radio can't sustain ourselves for the length of time required to get a business off the ground. The most likely candidates for that option are those who are collecting unemployment, and even that launches you into a sticky situation with the unemployment rules.

Your point of view smacks of the "it's my money, I can do whatever I damn well please" school of thought. Well, guess what. It ain't necessarily so, because MOST of it ISN'T YOUR MONEY, and because you have a LICENSE to operate on airwaves that are OWNED BY THE PUBLIC.

The consolidators by and large have blown their fiduciary responsibility to shareholders, investors, and lenders. How that all shakes out has yet to be seen. Whether there will be charges at some point has not yet been addressed. The country currently has bigger problems, and what ultimately happens has yet to be determined.

Bankruptcy doesn't leave radio stations ultimately in the hands of the government. The real process is that the company typically ends up being run by a "debtor in posession", which is often the current management team, while the seven largest creditors try to decide whether reorganization is an option, or if liquidation is the only answer. The government oversees this process. As we're seeing with Chrysler and GM, the process can be expedited, and government oversight can end withing 60-90 days. That's not the norm, but it can be that fast IF the major creditors get onto the same page quickly. Hence, Citadel hires a firm like Lazard Freres & Co. to "provide financial advice".

Your view of radio is that the debt load is not the driving force behind the current revision of programming and content distribution. Your point of view is that the recession is simply speeding up an ongoing process. Well, there certainly does seem to be some evidence that corporate radio has been reducing the role of talent for a long time. Your own attitude toward talent as "overpaid" and "lazy" certainly reflects an attitude that I've heard from corporate management quite often - a lot more often than I've heard it from local management who actually SEE the results of local talent daily.

For those who've forgotten your view of radio's future, let me refresh their memories of your suggestions for Citadel:

They should also encourage local volunteers who will program their classic rock station for free. I believe that would be a lot better than the lazy aging overpaid boomers they have now. Community involvement in the station would be promotable, give listeners a stake in their station, and be cheaper than syndication. I bet people would KILL to be on the air for free.

If you think the "lazy aging overpaid boomers" aren't entertaining, you should try actually listening to amateurs.

 

[TheBigA]

Your continual efforts to make this a "me vs. you" arguement, and to make this an INDIVIDUAL discussion instead of a broader discussion of the industry as a whole is simply an attempt to divert attention from the real problems that radio faces AS AN INDUSTRY.

I think you misinterpret what I'm saying. No arguement intended. Not a "me vs. you" thing at all. I am doing actual work making my part of the industry better, and I resent others making assumptions about me. If you or anyone wants to deal with issues facing the industry, you need to take direct action, not make demands of others. Other people won't do what you want, they won't be forced into doing what you want, and the industry is not going to change in a way you'll accept. The best you can do is change the part of it you can control.

Otherwise, you're just ranting about a lot of stuff, and nothing changes. If you want to save the business, you have to do something. If it costs money, that's your problem. Find a way to get it done. I've given very practical suggestions about how you and others can solve your problems. Unless you're in Congress, you're not going to change anything there either. Quit talking about what you can't do, and start looking at what you can do. The fact that most people take your approach is why things are this way.

MOST of it ISN'T YOUR MONEY, and because you have a LICENSE to operate on airwaves that are OWNED BY THE PUBLIC.

Doesn't matter. I have a license to operate a car on the public highways. That doesn't give you the right to tell me what to do. Beyond speed limits and other safety issues, the rest is up to me. Same with the airwaves. If I paid for the license and the facility, it's mine. I get to put whatever I want on it, as long as I don't use bad language or incite riots. That's about it.

 

[Element9]

....For those who've forgotten your view of radio's future, let me refresh their memories of your suggestions for Citadel:

They should also encourage local volunteers who will program their classic rock station for free. I believe that would be a lot better than the lazy aging overpaid boomers they have now. Community involvement in the station would be promotable, give listeners a stake in their station, and be cheaper than syndication. I bet people would KILL to be on the air for free.

If you think the "lazy aging overpaid boomers" aren't entertaining, you should try actually listening to amateurs.

BigA. Did you really write that? Do you really believe it? The quote's here, so one can only presume the answer to both questions is "Yes."

Are you serious?! Please.

I know at least three Classic Rock PDs in medium to large markets. Not one is lazy; only one might be considered "overpaid." The others are making adequate money but like so many people in the business, took paycuts of 5 - 20 per cent in order to keep their jobs. All are multi-tasking their asses off. Baby boomers? Yes. All. You got one right. Congratulations. From what you write, it appears you're an advocate of the Wal-Mart-ization of radio. Hideous.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Your continual efforts to make this a "me vs. you" arguement, and to make this an INDIVIDUAL discussion instead of a broader discussion of the industry as a whole is simply an attempt to divert attention from the real problems that radio faces AS AN INDUSTRY.

I think you misinterpret what I'm saying. No arguement intended. Not a "me vs. you" thing at all. I am doing actual work making my part of the industry better, and I resent others making assumptions about me.

Do tell. Since you won't even reveal who you work for, let alone what your role is, we can't judge your part in "making my part of the industry better". That could be anything from cleaning urinals, to doing a great show every day, to creating a rubric to determine who gets axed in the next round because revenue ain't keeping up with debt load.

If you or anyone wants to deal with issues facing the industry, you need to take direct action, not make demands of others. Other people won't do what you want, they won't be forced into doing what you want, and the industry is not going to change in a way you'll accept. The best you can do is change the part of it you can control.

Anybody who goes to work every day, and goes above and beyond what the company demands in order to serve the audience, advertisers, and the good of their fellow workers, is taking direct action, and changing at least THEIR part of the industry for the better. Even those who have been thrown out of work, but are helping to create new directions in programming, or doing something to inform the general public that they're being "hoodwinked, bamboozled, led astray" are doing SOMETHING to improve the industry.

Otherwise, you're just ranting about a lot of stuff, and nothing changes. If you want to save the business, you have to do something. If it costs money, that's your problem. Find a way to get it done. I've given very practical suggestions about how you and others can solve your problems. Unless you're in Congress, you're not going to change anything there either. Quit talking about what you can't do, and start looking at what you can do. The fact that most people take your approach is why things are this way.

Nope. Things are this way because a very few fat cats jobbed the system, and thought that they figured out a way to get even fatter. THAT'S why radio as an industry is in the trouble it's in. Bankruptcy appears to be in the future for several of the companies they created. Whether the next group of owners is as inept, short-sighted, and devious as some in the current group remains to be seen. If they are, they're likely to follow the same path to failure.

I have a license to operate a car on the public highways. That doesn't give you the right to tell me what to do. Beyond speed limits and other safety issues, the rest is up to me. Same with the airwaves. If I paid for the license and the facility, it's mine. I get to put whatever I want on it, as long as I don't use bad language or incite riots. That's about it.

Your license to own a radio station REQUIRES you to serve the "public interest, convenience, and necessity". You've already expressed your opinion that portions of broadcast law no longer apply. Enforcement IS lax. That's likely to be one of the topics that the next version of the FCC looks into. Their answer to that problem is likely to have a major effect on radio's future.

On a broader scale, you NEED to serve the public in some fashion in order to attract ratings. You need ratings to attract advertisers. You need advertisers to give you money to pay your bills. You sound like the long list of "executives" who've as much as stated that "listeners are sheep", yet are surprised when ratings drop, TSL drops, and an entire generation at the very least has a dim view of radio, and at worst has abandoned the medium in every-growing numbers.

What future radio has is very much in doubt. It could be - or in some cases remain - the vibrant medium that it has been for nearly a century. Or the bandwidth could be "recovered" to expand digital data streams in the future, relegating an entire industry to the dust heap.

 

[TheBigA]

Your license to own a radio station REQUIRES you to serve the "public interest, convenience, and necessity".

No one is breaking any laws. Your problem is one of interpretation. They're clearly doing what is required, because no one, including you, has filed any charges against them on this basis.

No one has lost their license because they didn't serve the public interest convenience and necessity.

The law requires you to drive the speed limit. Do you? Honestly?

 

[SirRoxalot]

Your license to own a radio station REQUIRES you to serve the "public interest, convenience, and necessity".

No one is breaking any laws. Your problem is one of interpretation. They're clearly doing what is required, because no one, including you, has filed any charges against them on this basis.

No one has lost their license because they didn't serve the public interest convenience and necessity.

The law requires you to drive the speed limit. Do you? Honestly?

I think it's quite obvious that there are a lot of stations that are not in compliance with Federal law, as well as FCC rules & regulations. Since I'm not in the enforcement division at the FCC, it's not my job to file charges against them.

Once again, your answer is simply an attempt at diversion that adds nothing to the main discussion.

 

[TheBigA]

I think it's quite obvious that there are a lot of stations that are not in compliance with Federal law, as well as FCC rules & regulations.

No one is breaking any laws. In fact, the FCC's reaction to Clear Channel's Premium Choice proposal was a unified rave.

But which laws are you talking about? The ones that require a certain percentage of live & local? Oh, no such law. The ones that require minimum staffing? Oh, no such law. The ones that require a certain percentage of local news coverage? No such laws. In fact all of the things you rant about continually are all perfectly legal.

My comment was not an attempt at diversion, but a response to an irrelevant statement made by you.

 

[pocket-radio]

You're being sucked in. It's a good game but it just goes nowhere, takes you in circles or just makes no sense. I'm not sure, but it's almost like things are being said or made up just to sir things up..

Ignore the problem...

 

[adma]

I don't know about the populace "rising up",

I wouldn't take my Perestroika analogy that far--it's more of a passive "opting out" than an active "rising up".

They should also encourage local volunteers who will program their classic rock station for free. I believe that would be a lot better than the lazy aging overpaid boomers they have now. Community involvement in the station would be promotable, give listeners a stake in their station, and be cheaper than syndication. I bet people would KILL to be on the air for free.

If you think the "lazy aging overpaid boomers" aren't entertaining, you should try actually listening to amateurs.

Well, 20 years ago the amateurs perhaps would have been more entertaining. But that's before 20 years of technological and taste change. These days, the kinds of classic rock fans who would KILL to be on the air for free are the sort who, well, one look at them and you'd wonder whether the "KILL" part would be literalized.