FCC & Radio Ownership Limits

[fybush]

With the government shutdown including 90% of the FCC workforce, it will be nice break from the craziness of it all. Business as usual is at a standstill at the FCC...and I think that's a good thing,!

You're entitled to your opinion - but as a consultant and broker, I have a whole portfolio of moves and deals in the works that are now completely stalled out for as long as the shutdown lasts. It's damaging my finances and my relationship with my clients.

Just another perspective.

 

[K.M. Richards]

With the government shutdown including 90% of the FCC workforce, it will be nice break from the craziness of it all. Business as usual is at a standstill at the FCC...and I think that's a good thing,!

That's because you are not actively in the business, Kat.

As Scott just said, the FCC is a necessity for the broadcast business to function. In fact, when you get right down to it, most of the negative impact there is coming from Brendan Carr, not from the staff.

I have to wonder if your opinion would change if your favorite station had a severe technical problem but had to go silent because there's no one at the Media Bureau right now to act on a STA request.

 

[davideduardo]

To answer the question on whether the limits should be raised, ask yourself this: Was radio better before consolidation, or after?

Any more questions?

It was better afterwards. In the early 90’s over half of all US stations were not profitable, in a big part due to Docket 80-90. Consolidation allowed operations economies that were necessary for survival.

 

[davideduardo]

Sure: What else happened after consolidation? When was the iPhone released? When did Spotify start?

Any more questions?

What device do you always take with you when you leave the house? Your phone or your radio?

Is there anything radio could do that would cause you to use it and throw away your phone or laptop?

Any more questions?

What company is worth over a $trillion? Apple or iHeart?

I can go on.

The internet was a game changing technology that completely changed everything.

It doesn't matter what radio was like before 2000. Because after that, nobody cared. And broadcast TV is in the same boat.

But consolidation occured… or started to occur… in 1995. iPhones were released more than a decade later. Even downloads had just, sort of, begun, a few years later.

But you are “right on” as to the changes in consumer habits. Today, radio has about 75% less Time Spent Listening per person than it had 20 years ago, and advertisers perceive it as “old fashioned”.

 

[TheBigA]

Of course there are no new commercial operators stepping up to buy stations in a dying sector, especially when they face competition from monopolistic operators who own too many stations in any market where there might be one station for sale.

And yet that's not a problem for EMF. They don't care about competition because they have a product that people want and will pay for to hear. For them, there is no competition, especially now that they bought all the Fish stations from Salem. If a new operator came along with something fresh and unique with a good business plan, they could easily do what EMF is doing. But there seems to be no one else.

The top four radio companies in the U.S. control over 50% of advertising revenue and nearly half of all listeners. Not only has this thwarted competition, but station programming has become safer, more calculated and more homogenized

The amount of advertising revenue is controlled by law. That isn't being discussed at all. So it's likely that even if the ownership laws are changed, there will still be limits on the amount of ad revenue they can control. Once again, that opens the door for someone with creative & unique format ideas, who isn't dependent on advertising. I think listeners want a broadcast option that isn't filled with advertising. But there doesn't appear to be anyone in that area.

While some here try to blame radio's problems on digital disruption, the fact is radio continues to thrive in many other countries.

We are not "other countries." There was a digital disruption. It's not made up. It also affected the music industry and retail. People here are happy with the digital options. That's why they use them. Those options allow them to create their own playlists with either fewer or no commercials. Once again, if someone came along with a broadcast version of that, it might do well. But you can't ignore the facts I listed in my post about phones. Compare the availability of phones to radios. The radio device has become less available, and that's not because of the radio owners.

 

[Kent]

To answer the question on whether the limits should be raised, ask yourself this: Was radio better before consolidation, or after?

If you were looking for a job, radio was definitely better before consolidation. I don't know, however, that it was much, if any, better from a listening standpoint. Where I grew up, we had about 12 different owners in 1991, and roughly 2/3 of them were chasing country and oldies. That didn't make for great radio. While the market has more stations and a ton of translators now, it's pretty much the same today. Most everybody is still chasing the 25-54 demo. I find it a tad more palatable today, but that's only because I'm in that demo now (though I'll be out of it in a few years). At most, two stations were interested in serving me then. The same two stations are going after the 18-34 audience today with one more on a rimshot signal targeting that group now.

This is where you and I would differ. For you, radio, TV, and the new media (streaming, podcasts, etc.) can be lumped together as one "the media," and therefore there would be no monopolies created should the FCC remove all AM and FM ownership limits. Also, your viewpoint (as I understand it) is that since there is less audience for over-the-air broadcasting, then broadcasters should be allowed to grow and become monopolies to serve that smaller audience.

I mostly fall on your side here, Ted, albeit maybe for a different reason. No one is stopping current broadcasters from getting into those other forms of entertainment. As the Big A mentions, iHeart has been adding more streaming and podcasts and is doing well with it. Cumulus has also been getting heavily into the podcasting business, though one could make a convincing case that it's not getting much out of doing so. The idea that massive consolidation is going to solve radio's problem seems hollow to me when the problem is that more people are getting their audio and entertainment somewhere else. The solution to that problem isn't buying more radio; it's moving into that somewhere else. I can, however, see how some cap relief might be beneficial in some of the smaller markets. I know at least two smaller markets that have owners who are getting up in years, have kids who no longer want to be in the business (if they ever did), and would like to cash out. They can't at the moment because the people interested in owning more stations aren't allowed to buy them out. One of them offered his stations to his employees. They were interested but couldn't secure the financing. I don't necessarily like the answer, but the best way to solve their problems is probably to allow their current competitors to carve them up.

The top four radio companies in the U.S. control over 50% of advertising revenue and nearly half of all listeners. Not only has this thwarted competition, but station programming has become safer, more calculated and more homogenized with just a handful of unadventurous formats making up more than three-quarters of commercial content nationwide.

I never saw that many adventurous formats before consolidation either. A couple of the markets where I grew up had underground alternative stations in the late 80's/early 90's. In one of them, consolidation didn't kill the format. An urban station took it over years before 1996 and moved the format off of its AM, which then shifted to religion. In the other, the station survived consolidation and lasted until the end of 2016. I'm sure, if you looked hard enough, you could find a case or two where you'd be able to hang your hat, but, as I mentioned above, 10 FM stations, six of which were chasing country and oldies roughly 35 years ago, is the textbook definition of homogenized and unadventurous programming. Maybe that market was an outlier or maybe my memory is a bit fuzzy of what it was really like, but I remember the average market in the early 90's sounding a lot more like mine than like any bastion of originality or creativity.

While some here try to blame radio's problems on digital disruption, the fact is radio continues to thrive in many other countries. Those with strong public broadcasters like Finland, France, Sweden and South Africa have especially vibrant radio cultures, but commercial radio still does well too in well-regulated markets where it hasn't become excessively concentrated. Germany and France maintain stricter ownership caps and licensing rules, preserving regional diversity and local content. Brazil and South Africa have vibrant commercial sectors with many independent operators. UK commercial radio is consolidated, but regulators enforce local content quotas and public service obligations. Those countries still have healthy radio advertising markets and high audience reach while the programming remains vibrant and diversified as a result of good policy.

I don't know if you've noticed, but radio is mostly networked in those countries. Again, that's the textbook definition of homogenized content. It's also almost always unadventurous. The whole point of a network is to go after large swaths of people, and you don't usually get that audience by programming to tight niches. If you want to say you like that model better or prefer radio to sound like that, knock yourself out, but don't pretend it's something it's not.

 

[TheBigA]

The 'scarcity' referred to in the article is the scarcity of available frequencies in the radio bands, especially the FM band. If Mr. Carr's proposition were to go into effect, I certainly hope someone challenges it in our court system.

We see his idea in other parts of this government. The idea that one can pay them in order to avoid complying with the law. That's what he's proposing. The real question that should be asked is why the law is there in the first place.

 

[K.M. Richards]

Today, radio has about 75% less Time Spent Listening per person than it had 20 years ago, and advertisers perceive it as “old fashioned”.

And yet, the advertisers flock to the "replacement" media, apparently oblivious to a few facts that are not the case with terrestrial radio:

One, people put ad blockers on their computers and smartphones ... or they train themselves to ignore the ads except for the annoyance of pop-ups (which leave a negative impression because they are annoying). And a lot of sites will not include the ads for paying subscribers. Oops.

Two, it is relatively easy for people listening to podcasts to skip through the commercial breaks. I listen to Keith Olbermann's twice weekly "Countdown" podcast via iHeart's website, and the player conveniently includes a clickable icon to go forward 30 seconds. Oops again.

With radio, listeners either have to stay through the stopset -- no ad blocker or fast-forward function -- unless they want to switch to a competitor (who probably has their stopsets running at the same points in the hour). Sooner or later, most listeners decide it isn't worth the effort to go somewhere else when the spots start playing, and that means we have the higher efficiency factor for the advertisers.

There is one truism about all media ... regardless of content, we are all in the advertising business, and the people who decry that apparently never get it through their thick skulls that the spots are what make it free for them.

 

[TheBigA]

The idea that massive consolidation is going to solve radio's problem seems hollow to me when the problem is that more people are getting their audio and entertainment somewhere else. The solution to that problem isn't buying more radio; it's moving into that somewhere else.

I haven't seen anyone say that more consolidation will solve radio's problem. I think what they're saying is over-regulation hasn't helped. I think there have been a series of bad FCC regulations going back 40 years that are partly why radio here is so different from other countries.

I never saw that many adventurous formats before consolidation either. A couple of the markets where I grew up had underground alternative stations in the late 80's/early 90's. In one of them, consolidation didn't kill the format.

I think what people are thinking of is the brief moment in the early 70s when FM radio was a bit more adventurous and experimental. That lasted a very short time, and really wasn't very successful. Then a bunch of consultants came in to make rock radio more commercially viable. It worked. Until the end of the 80s. That's when the music became more individual and no longer fit into formats.

 

[K.M. Richards]

The 'scarcity' referred to in the article is the scarcity of available frequencies in the radio bands, especially the FM band. If Mr. Carr's proposition were to go into effect, I certainly hope someone challenges it in our court system.

We see his idea in other parts of this government. The idea that one can pay them in order to avoid complying with the law. That's what he's proposing. The real question that should be asked is why the law is there in the first place.

In an era where running an hour of generic public affairs programming at 6:00am on Sunday appears to fulfill the Commission's concerns about serving the public interest, I'd rather do that than pay some exorbitant amount for a "free of regulatory concerns" license.

Especially since the generic PA shows these days come with a couple of minutes of local commercial avails, where I run PI spots and occasionally make a few bucks as a result.

 

[JJSPC]

Folks...may I respectfully say that all who remember how radio used to be, need to get over the attitude of "If radio would just do...xxx...again it would be great and make tons of money". As has been said many times here, advertising dollars, changing times and technology have all moved on. You can argue that radio was better back "then" and I agree with you. But that was yesterday's business climate and not today's. Compare it to retail. We had small merchants, then department stores, then superstores, and now online shopping. Anyone else remember when K-Mart was the largest and most successful retailer in the United States? And then Walmart came along and convinced the public they had more to offer. Pulling this back to radio, the public has embraced the fact that on demand streaming of whatever they want to hear at the moment they want to hear it, is better than waiting around listening to radio for their song or other content.

 

[K.M. Richards]

And now, to add some actual facts to the discussion about the FCC's operation during the government shutdown, I found this document detailing their plan. Among other things, it specifies which of the Commission's functions are to be suspended, and which will continue as if nothing had happened.

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-414960A1.pdf

 

[K.M. Richards]

Pulling this back to radio, the public has embraced the fact that on demand streaming of whatever they want to hear at the moment they want to hear it, is better than waiting around listening to radio for their song or other content.

True, to a degree. From a purely technical standpoint, someone could always buy recordings of their favorite songs (first on records, then tapes, then CDs, now digital files) and listen to them "on demand". Only the technology has changed.

Radio is now a service for people who just want to listen, hear some of their favorite songs in the mix, and not have to go to the trouble of finding the precise song they want at the precise moment. Again, there's the trade off ... radio is just there, no searching for specific content, no monthly subscription fees, etc.

 

[TheBigA]

Radio is now a service for people who just want to listen, hear some of their favorite songs in the mix, and not have to go to the trouble of finding the precise song they want at the precise moment. Again, there's the trade off ... radio is just there, no searching for specific content, no monthly subscription fees, etc.

That really only applies to music radio. News, Talk, & Sports are an entirely different discussion.

 

[K.M. Richards]

That really only applies to music radio. News, Talk, & Sports are an entirely different discussion.

I thought that was obvious in context, but yes.

 

[davideduardo]

This is where you and I would differ. For you, radio, TV, and the new media (streaming, podcasts, etc.) can be lumped together as one "the media," and therefore there would be no monopolies created should the FCC remove all AM and FM ownership limits. Also, your viewpoint (as I understand it) is that since there is less audience for over-the-air broadcasting, then broadcasters should be allowed to grow and become monopolies to serve that smaller audience.

Please look at this issue from the point of view of the media consumer. A person has all kinds of audio choices, including AM and FM radio, satellite radio, podcasts, streams with commercials and streams without commercials.

When a person wants to hear something, they don't think "Oh, I guess I should listen to an FM station". They think about where their favorite music, news, talk or sports content is found. In 75% of the cases, they do no go to an over the air radio station.

One of the interesting legal battles recently involved the proposed merger of two of the biggest supermarket chains. However, the discussions on "market share monopoly" failed to include the grocery departments of Walmart and Target as well as the online grocery shopping with Amazon and Walmart (again) and smaller internet based grocers.

When my family buys groceries, almost all the non-frozen items are bought through Amazon and Walmart. They bring them to us at about the same added cost of time and use of our cars. For us, and many other consumers, the options include all sources. Just as in audio services, consumers look at their available panorama.

As BigA said, folks no longer take a little radio with them when they leave home. They have "radio" on their phone.

But I disagree with your starting point. AM and FM radio are separate from the so-called new media and should be treated separately. Why? Because of the limitations on available frequency space on AM and FM, something that does not apply to the Internet.

Again, look at this from a consumer perspective. We have thousands of audio options, and only in 25% of occasions do we look to radio.

The number of frequencies on both the AM and FM bands are limited not only by law but also by practicality. There isn't space enough, even if you allow the much narrower separations between local outlets like Mexico does,

Nearly every nation with full commercial broadcasting has the same separations (second adjacent local channels) because they are not encumbered by FCC rules written or based on 40's and 50's receiver technology.

to have unlimited broadcaster ownership on these bands and still allow new entrants. And when you fill up all of the available frequencies in a given market with stations all owned by the same owner, then you have created a monopoly for that market, even if that monopoly isn't national.

How is there a monopoly when radio only captures a quarter of all local audio listening.

When Sherman and Clayton were passed, the concern was not about how big the audience was (commercial radio hadn't entered the picture yet) but the power over pricing and the behavior of others that monopolies could allow for their owners.

Again, from the consumer perspective, radio is now very secondary.

Compare that with the Internet which houses the new media. While there are a few limitations, there are virtually no limitations on new entrants since no over-the-air frequencies are used. The major limitations have to do with the cost of using copyrighted material over the Internet (high and probably will go higher) and the cost paid to streaming providers (relatively low as I understand it). In the Internet world, you don't have to worry about monopolies and monopolistic competition because the price and availability for new entrants is (relatively) low.

And licensed AM and FM stations have to compete with audio competition that has certain advantages over them, including the ability charge users for their service. Eventually, those non-AM and FM services will disappear entirely because they only have one revenue model and huge restrictions that any other service does not have.

No, the rules (not many) used for broadcasting over the Internet *should not* be used for over-the-air broadcasting again because of the limited number of frequencies available for the latter. And the current size of the over-the-air audience shouldn't be a part of that discussion.

From the listener perspective, it's just "audio". The more you restrict AM and FM station owners from creating viable operations, the sooner the whole sector will die.

 

[Delete My Account]

Couple of points.

If that many stations weren't "profitable" how did they stay on the air? I maintain a lot of that was because of independent owners where they didn't show "profit" because they paid a livable salary to the party that owned them. It's all in how it was documented. If they truly were failing to that degree, there'd have been far fewer stations long before now.

No one's denying technology exists and the picture has changed. But listenership is still healthy to actual radio stations even on digital platforms. But for the most part, that's not profitable yet. But we still have to be there. Same with digital. Digital advertising and social media platforms are easily ignored, blocked and quite frankly, Silicon Valley and venture capital has lied to our advertisers. They've distorted the picture with untruths. That's not merely advertiser choice in a vacuum, that's an actively counter-competitive situation backed by billionaires. And the ad agencies, filled with younger trend chasers, who probably abandoned radio before your average local, went right along with it. It's not just the technology. It's unethical tactics.

Without giving away where I live, my area trends higher income, higher education. Yes, many of them have gone on to streaming because local radio doesn't offer them what they desire musically. Or the iHeart station (who, to be fair does a pretty good job with the classic hits music) plays 10 minute spot breaks. They'll listen to NPR. They'll support a non-commercial music station. And a lot of them really love radio. Even if it's streaming an actual radio station. They're not asking for me to play Wire or the Velvet Underground at 10 AM. But they want better radio than they're getting.

People can trash the system in Canada, the UK, Europe. But at least they didn't over license the stations. Call it anti-capitalism? The small businesses and "corporate" broadcasters did very well under those systems and kept a lot of people employed. They also had regulations where, instead of letting SoundExchange neutralize a ton of potential growth in streaming, they have systems where you can be an "indie" or small station and still NOT lose money streaming your signal! In the UK and Europe, they managed DAB transition so nearly 50 percent of listening now is on DAB, which is linear professional radio! And they also provided a much more straightforward community radio service. Did you know in NZ, you can buy an approved transmitter and serve your neighborhood on a specific frequency without a complicated engineering process? Did you know at least two of those brands started in people's spare rooms became national brands? Sounds to me like a culture that supports entrepreneurs. In the UK, your community station can sell a certain amount of regular style ads. Meanwhile, here, we fought for years over 100 watt LPFMs because, supposedly, those caused "more" interference potentially than 250 watt translators.

Normal people in the US are squeezed financially. Normal people don't sit around all day curating playlists. Normal people don't want dishonesty from tech companies. And the best of them care about what's going on around them, aren't endlessly consuming potentially fake nonsense from social media, and value experiences and community. They touch grass. Those are valuable people to advertisers. Those people step up when a public radio station, for instance, has a successful fundraiser after defunding. And there's still enough of those people, to make operating a local radio station, in tandem with the growing digital products, a viable proposition.

Closing with this, Reddit is considered a much younger and more tech savvy site. Do you know how often I go on there and see people asking about "good" local radio stations? Upset about CPB defunding? Excited that KEXP came to the Bay Area? Not just noncommercial stations either. Commercial ones get applause too. Even from these "younger people."

This is a harder job than ever, and no one sector is at parity yet. You're piecing together different platforms trying to make it work. But here's what I don't want to see out of this "regulatory review."

The continued mentality of too big to fail. I say let them. Let stations go off. Let idealistic people get in for less. None of these companies lobbying for loosening of restrictions were denied the chance to do the things that could have put them in a better position. Let the values fall, the new people try, and maybe they'll fail too. But at least we didn't just sign off the last of what's supposed to be a public interest, the broadcast spectrum, go to prop up someone's executive compensation plan (to offload it to someone else, also too big to fail.)

Let's put a stop to the pretense and the nonsense. Maybe out of the ashes will rise some innovators. In the meantime, I'll be listening to the ones who, today, are actually making it work by doing all the things that are supposedly out of date and no one cares about because TikTok, or whatever. Here in the real world.

 

[davideduardo]

The top four radio companies in the U.S. control over 50% of advertising revenue and nearly half of all listeners. Not only has this thwarted competition, but station programming has become safer, more calculated and more homogenized with just a handful of unadventurous formats making up more than three-quarters of commercial content nationwide. What we have in America is a culture of creating lazy, lousy content as cheaply as possible while prioritizing corporate growth through mergers and acquisitions above all else, as CEOs seek ways to increase their wealth.

What we have is an industry where total inflation adjusted revenue is down 75% in the last decade.

If I was a radio CEO today, I'd want to be well paid as the future in such a position is limited.

They do this knowing it will inevitably lead to their companies becoming over-leveraged to the point of eventual bankruptcy, but it doesn't matter if they can make their bonuses anyway.

The "over-leveraged" issue dates back to the relative prosperity in the later 90's and earlier 00's. Ever since the 2008 recession (combined with the introduction of the iPhone and the launch of the PPM) the "deals" have been bankruptcies, reorganizations and the like... because the business is in true decline.

While some here try to blame radio's problems on digital disruption, the fact is radio continues to thrive in many other countries.

No, it does not "thrive". It is, however, better off because in many other countries "national" stations on many frequencies are permitted.

Those with strong public broadcasters like Finland, France, Sweden and South Africa have especially vibrant radio cultures, but commercial radio still does well too in well-regulated markets where it hasn't become excessively concentrated.

Not really as "well" as you think. Only because national stations are allowed has radio done better than in the U.S., but radio is still competing with streaming everywhere. And that is because ad agencies can buy one or two such stations and get one or two invoices. In the U.S. you have to buy hundreds of individual stations with differing owners, rate structures and billing procedures; it is a paperwork nightmare that many agencies have decided to just bypass.

Germany and France maintain stricter ownership caps and licensing rules, preserving regional diversity and local content.

Wrong. Metromedia put a single station on in Berlin. It did well in ratings, and was very professional in every way. But it go nearly no agency buys as those agencies did not buy local radio. The station was sold and became part of another company's network.

France does have some local stations, but most ad revenue goes to the national stations.

Brazil and South Africa have vibrant commercial sectors with many independent operators.

Yet in Brazil the bulk of revenue goes to the corporate "one buy - all Brazil" operationns.

UK commercial radio is consolidated, but regulators enforce local content quotas and public service obligations. Those countries still have healthy radio advertising markets and high audience reach while the programming remains vibrant and diversified as a result of good policy.

And most of the successful commercial operations are either national or regional.

Countries where I have worked, from Puerto Rico to the Dominican Republic to Ecuador, Colombia, Perú and Chile all have national "single owner - one buy - one invoice - one format" operators who take the vast bulk of revenue.

 

[TheBigA]

If that many stations weren't "profitable" how did they stay on the air? I maintain a lot of that was because of independent owners where they didn't show "profit" because they paid a livable salary to the party that owned them.

It depends on how you measure "profit."

I say let them. Let stations go off. Let idealistic people get in for less. None of these companies lobbying for loosening of restrictions were denied the chance to do the things that could have put them in a better position.

What "things" could have "put them in a better position?" What they're saying is broadcasting is over-regulated, compared to other business. That hasn't changed in 40 years. So yes, they were denied the chance to make broadcast radio into what became satellite or internet radio. Those platforms aren't as regulated as broadcasting. Had they done that, it would have put them in a better position. But they can't.

People here are trying to define "radio" by what it was 50 years ago. The future will not be like the past. Have the courage to imagine what radio could be if it wasn't incumbered by the government threatening it with license revocation.

 

[davideduardo]

Couple of points.

If that many stations weren't "profitable" how did they stay on the air? I maintain a lot of that was because of independent owners where they didn't show "profit" because they paid a livable salary to the party that owned them. It's all in how it was documented. If they truly were failing to that degree, there'd have been far fewer stations long before now.

Many stations just broke even, but had no profits. Yes, in smaller stations and small groups, the owner paid themselves a salary that was enough to "get by" but did not allow for innovative programming.

No one's denying technology exists and the picture has changed. But listenership is still healthy to actual radio stations even on digital platforms.

In 1995, the "persons using radio" or PUR was from 18 to 21 depending on the market. That means that about one out of every five persons on average was listening to the radio, 6 AM to Midnight. Today, the "Persons Using Mass Media" which includes stations and their streams is around 5. That means that listening has fallen 75% in 30 years. Radio revenue, inflation adjusted, is also down by that percentage.

But for the most part, that's not profitable yet. But we still have to be there. Same with digital. Digital advertising and social media platforms are easily ignored, blocked and quite frankly, Silicon Valley and venture capital has lied to our advertisers. They've distorted the picture with untruths. That's not merely advertiser choice in a vacuum, that's an actively counter-competitive situation backed by billionaires. And the ad agencies, filled with younger trend chasers, who probably abandoned radio before your average local, went right along with it. It's not just the technology. It's unethical tactics.

But the fact remains that new media has 75% of listening, and can't be ignored. And new media is national and easy to buy with far less paperwork and administrative time spent.

For example, let's say a campaign wants to buy country formats in the top 200 national markets. No single operator even has 50% of those stations and markets. And you end up with 40 or so different owners, with different invoices. If you buy internet options, you get national coverage and a single invoice.

I agree that the web based services are somewhat nebulous, but the advertiser likes the simplicity of the buying process.

Without giving away where I live, my area trends higher income, higher education. Yes, many of them have gone on to streaming because local radio doesn't offer them what they desire musically. Or the iHeart station (who, to be fair does a pretty good job with the classic hits music) plays 10 minute spot breaks. They'll listen to NPR. They'll support a non-commercial music station. And a lot of them really love radio. Even if it's streaming an actual radio station. They're not asking for me to play Wire or the Velvet Underground at 10 AM. But they want better radio than they're getting.

And you have done a true random probability sample of the whole market to prove that?

I thought not.

People can trash the system in Canada, the UK, Europe. But at least they didn't over license the stations.

Yet in Canada licensees are turning in 50 kw AM licenses in top 5 markets. In general, Canadian radio may be worse off than U.S. radio. I blame over-regulation in part.

Call it anti-capitalism? The small businesses and "corporate" broadcasters did very well under those systems and kept a lot of people employed. They also had regulations where, instead of letting SoundExchange neutralize a ton of potential growth in streaming, they have systems where you can be an "indie" or small station and still NOT lose money streaming your signal!

That is not a radio issue. SoundExchange came right out of Washington, DC, under the influence of the failing music industry.

In the UK and Europe, they managed DAB transition so nearly 50 percent of listening now is on DAB, which is linear professional radio!

The only places where DAB has been "successful" is where the government controlled most of radio, such as Scandinavia and England. How many nations in Latin America or Asia have successful (or any) DAB transitions?

Normal people in the US are squeezed financially. Normal people don't sit around all day curating playlists. Normal people don't want dishonesty from tech companies. And the best of them care about what's going on around them, aren't endlessly consuming potentially fake nonsense from social media, and value experiences and community. They touch grass. Those are valuable people to advertisers. Those people step up when a public radio station, for instance, has a successful fundraiser after defunding. And there's still enough of those people, to make operating a local radio station, in tandem with the growing digital products, a viable proposition.

Public radio generally gets an average of about 5% of listening.

And few advertisers buy based on income.