• 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

FCC & Radio Ownership Limits

The new stations either signing on or moving in provided narrower, more focused programming. I don't know if you remember radio around 1990, but I remember San Antonio having five oldies stations (860 and 930 on AM, 99.5, 101.1, and 105.3 on FM) because everyone wanted to chase the 25-54 demo. Consolidation got rid of three of them and provided service to an audience that was either unserved or not as well served.
You bring up a very important point. When an owner has 4 or 5 FMs in a market, they sell combos of 2, 3 and even all of them to advertisers. So they don't have to always fight for the biggest possible format, but for groups of formats that can be sold even more effectively than single stations.

When I owned clusters in now-ancient times, I'd nearly always sell at least 3 together, and often all 6. I could have very limited formats, like classical music, but combined with other "bigger" stations, I could sell it. Otherwise, I could not have run classical as a stand alone format.
While you have some inaccuracies in those statements, I have found myself making a similar argument that, whatever you might think about consolidation, it probably hasn't worked out as hoped. Small local companies going bankrupt (and plenty did) is arguably more perilous for the station licenses and to the listening audience than a large company going broke because the latter will have a better chance of continuing business as usual while it goes through the bankruptcy process, but the four largest consolidators filing bankruptcy isn't a success.
One of the issues is that not even the government SBA gave loans to radio stations. A huge issue for smaller markets is the unavailability of financing. You run out of money, you turn off the transmitter.
I would also assert that programming diversity, at least at the local level, generally improved after consolidation. Again, look at San Antonio. Is programming more diverse with five oldies stations or with two?
Yep, as I mentioned above, clusters enhance the ability to build groups of stations that can be combined to win ad buys.
 
Something to keep in mind is that, despite the problems Docket 80-90 caused for station owners, the audience liked the additional choices.

This is a part of this discussion that gets overlooked. I often read comments from people complaining about format duplication in their city. "Do we need another country station?" No, one is enough. But competition means you have two. If there was only one company owning all the stations, there would be no need for format duplication, and you'd have more formats. Of course they would still rely on advertising for revenue, so the formats would still be pretty mainstream. But there definitely would be more format choices.
 
If you want to say I don't have the answers to radio's problems, you'd be right. If I did, I wouldn't be on these boards talking radio. I'd be out turning radio's problems around and making tons of money.
This right here.

That's not to say that there isn't a lot of defensiveness and clinging to the status quo ante around here...or in the media business generally. That's futile. In any business, what worked 30 or 40 or more years ago may not work now. Radio and other media have found this out big time. It's well past time to be open to new ideas.

The answers to radio's problems will have to come from newer generations. (Which ain't me, babe...itself a dated reference.) They won't be found by hanging on to the past...or by defending a clearly dysfunctional present.
 
The answers to radio's problems will have to come from newer generations.

I agree. I think the deciding factor will be about money. Right now people are willing to pay for things like Sirius or Spotify. Prices keep going up. At some point, old & free usually beats new and expensive. This whole argument about the number of companies doesn't matter. How many cellular companies are there? Three??
 
This is a part of this discussion that gets overlooked. I often read comments from people complaining about format duplication in their city. "Do we need another country station?" No, one is enough. But competition means you have two. If there was only one company owning all the stations, there would be no need for format duplication, and you'd have more formats. Of course they would still rely on advertising for revenue, so the formats would still be pretty mainstream. But there definitely would be more format choices.
I completely agree with this, but I do think some competition is healthy. Let's take your example of the country station though. A small market has two country stations, one owned by a large national company, and the other locally owned. The locally owned station is bought by the national company. Since the national company owns the competition, the formerly locally owned station is flipped to classic country. Sure, you've given a choice to the older folks who don't like current country, but what if many of the former listeners do not appreciate that now the only country station in the market is 100% tracked from outside the market?
I do not buy the argument that nobody cares. The reason K-Love does so well is because they are taking every opportunity they can get to make sure they have full national coverage, and they are a known brand, but nobody in commercial radio has attempted this outside of Radio Disney, and I'd argue that failed not because of the model of radio, but because there's no money in targeting children. Instead, we get something like Minot's Hit Music Z94, but other than the imaging saying the above, there's no local content.
It's very true that the two stations I listen to most frequently from outside my market are mostly automated, but they have interesting playlists, not generic-sounding national playlists I can get on dozens of small-market stations owned by the same company. One is broad-based variety hits, the other very forward-thinking classic hits. Both surprise me at least once most of the time I listen. Another station has a much softer approach to Classic Hits than is standard, which I also appreciate. All three are locally owned. Contrast that to iHeart stations in similarly sized markets, all running the same very safe but very boring national list. If some of the big companies would follow the EMF model of two or three deep national stations in one market rather than pretending that all six or eight brands in a market are local while doing nothing but piping in national content, I think radio would be much better off.
 
what if many of the former listeners do not appreciate that now the only country station in the market is 100% tracked from outside the market?
You're making a lot of assumptions. If people don't like what's on the radio, they don't listen. No one forces them to listen, and they have lots of choices besides broadcast radio. We're talking about format duplication, not customized radio that satisfies every possible personal taste.
 
This is true, but we're already seeing cume decline as it is. My guess is we won't know the answer to this until it's tried, and even then the answer will probably depend on the market, but is the loss in cume of one country station going to be enough to justify a station doing a different flavor of country? I suspect in a lot of smaller markets the answer would be yes, but in a market like Seattle, probably not. Then again, in Seattle, the birthplace of grunge, we may see a classic alternative that doesn't exist now.
 
This is true, but we're already seeing cume decline as it is.

If so, then it has nothing to do with some hypothetical format change. It might be because people are just busier now than they used to be, or are using media other than radio for entertainment. You're never going to satisfy everyone. But if you eliminate format duplication, you open the door for more formats.
 

The comment deadline relating to revised ownership caps is set for 1/16/26 with industry comment due 12/17/25. As I interpret this, this comment solicitation will inform the formal proposed rule that will then be issued amending the current cap structure. Recent court rulings will also inform the subsequent rule.
 
Public comments are required on any new rule by a government agency. The comments generally look like comments on this message board. You have some comments that want to return to 7-7-7 limits of the 70s. You'll have some comments that want no limits at all. The purpose is simply to give everyone a chance to speak. If this goes the way previous rules have gone, the actual rule has already been written.
 
We have a discussion going on in the San Francisco board about the Connoisseur purchase of the Bonneville stations. They are seeking a waiver to FCC ownership rules. In their filing, they say something that really is fundamental to the entire discussion about ownership rules:

“They cannot be expected to serve the public at the same level as in the past in the face of declining revenues,” the company filing says, adding, “Only by increasing scale can they maintain their service to the public.”

People look at radio companies laying off staff, and they don't see the connection to declining station revenues. You can't pay for staff when revenues aren't keeping up with expenses. That's the problem radio faces.
 
SF and NYC are two markets where I do think the ownership caps can be changed. Connoisseur's argument here is also that the stations they already have serve embedded markets within the larger SF market, rather than the entire market. I don't see why having a cluster in New York City should count against having one on Long Island, when if you listen to those stations, they are clearly targeting different areas, sometimes with little overlap. Those are the only two very obvious examples to me of where ownership caps should change.
 
To answer the question on whether the limits should be raised, ask yourself this: Was radio better before consolidation, or after?

Any more questions?

Let's use the UK to answer that. I live there for 25 years. Absolutely not. Across the country you can literally hear the same 3-4 stations. Local identity erased, all networked from a single location. Even the BBC had pulled back on local. As some have said, the future is definitely not FM and I guarantee you HD radio isn't either. FM will survive longer than AM but the writing is still on the wall
 
Let's use the UK to answer that. I live there for 25 years. Absolutely not. Across the country you can literally hear the same 3-4 stations. Local identity erased, all networked from a single location.
First, in every nation in the world, down to the least technologically advanced, much of the audience for over the air radio from the pre-internet days has migrated to streams and podcasts and the like. So there is less audience, and for commercial stations, less revenue. A lot less.

At the same time, many of the "local services" on radio are much better served to the public online: weather, news, and even things like stock market reports.

In many cases, "local radio" was local because the costs and quality and tech requirements of regional or national broadcasting were prohibitive.

Exactly what did "local radio" do previously that is so badly needed today?
Even the BBC had pulled back on local.
Costs have increased for all types of radio broadcasting. And, again, many of the informational services of radio have been replaced by the internet.
As some have said, the future is definitely not FM and I guarantee you HD radio isn't either. FM will survive longer than AM but the writing is still on the wall
Radio began in most countries as a national service via either wired networks or "big" signals with regional or national coverage. There was little real local radio in many places. We have returned to that today.
 

I think it would be difficult to challenge the argument for consolidation. It needs to happen if broadcast TV is to remain economically viable. I don't know if Scripps ultimately merges with Sinclair, someone else or articulates a business plan where they remain independent, but if it that latter strategy, they'll need to be on the hunt to grow via acquisition as well.
 
I think it would be difficult to challenge the argument for consolidation. It needs to happen if broadcast TV is to remain economically viable.

How do you explain that to the president?

 
I don't mean to make this thread political, but that's just one example of how clueless the current administration is. As far as I know, the networks have near complete national coverage as it is, and all raising the ownership cap would do is have one company own more of the affiliates. The issue I have with more consolidation on the TV side is that one or two companies can effectively force the network's hand. September was a good example of this, when the two biggest owners dropped ABC's late show, effectively canceling it for a week. Even when it returned, Synclaire refused to air it for a couple more days.
 


Back
Top Bottom