IF Telecom hadn't been enacted......

[jas2525]

If the Teleommunications Act of 1996 hadn't been enacted, what would talkradio be like today?

 

[TheBigA]

If the Teleommunications Act of 1996 hadn't been enacted, what would talkradio be like today?

What's in the 96 Act that has anything to do with talk radio?

The only thing I know is that if it hadn't been enacted, AM radio would have disappeared. Because it required companies that bought FMs to also buy AMs. That way, they could use the added profits from FM to fund the dying AMs. So it gave AM another ten-15 years of life, which is the where talk radio now resides.

 

[jas2525]

What's in the 96 Act that has anything to do with talk radio?

You're kidding, right?

Allowing the manipulation of formerly competitive markets, particularly within the talk format, has had a chilling effect on the entire nature of the industry.

The only thing I know is that if it hadn't been enacted, AM radio would have disappeared. Because it required companies that bought FMs to also buy AMs. That way, they could use the added profits from FM to fund the dying AMs. So it gave AM another ten-15 years of life, which is the where talk radio now resides.

That's absurd. While some AM's would have disappeared, plenty of others would've continued to thrive. Or are you trying to tell me that Telecom saved KGO, KYW, WSB, KFI, etc. etc.?

 

[TheBigA]

Allowing the manipulation of formerly competitive markets, particularly within the talk format, has had a chilling effect on the entire nature of the industry.

Huh? Maybe you can be specific what shows were canceled or what talk stations disappeared after 1996. I think the demise of the Fairness Doctrine was a far more important change for talk radio than the 1996 TCA. If you look at the number of stations carrying talk programming, there are far more now than before 1996. More stations in a format means more competition.

That's absurd. While some AM's would have disappeared, plenty of others would've continued to thrive. Or are you trying to tell me that Telecom saved KGO, KYW, WSB, KFI, etc. etc.?

There are a handful of successful AM stations in this country. Most of them are 50KW in major markets. Prior to the 96 Act, more than 2/3rd of all AM stations were losing money, and close to bankruptcy. The 96 Act encouraged companies to buy those money-losing AMs and combine them with lucrative FMs. They had to retain those stations for a minimum number of years. That time has passed, and those stations are now back to losing money.

 

[borderblaster]

For the most part, the big names would still be the big names. If large market radio stations were owned by insurance companies the way they used to be, I wouldn't expect a lot of difference. Glenn Beck's star may not have risen as fast, or maybe he would have. In Cincinnati, we'd have WLW largely doing what WLW has always done; very little difference, and WKRC would be carrying Rush, Beck, Savage etc like they are now. Would there be a major liberal talk giant personality or format? Doubtful.

 

[TheBigA]

For the most part, the big names would still be the big names. If large market radio stations were owned by insurance companies the way they used to be, I wouldn't expect a lot of difference.

I don't think insurance companies, or any company that is in the customer satisfaction business, would want to be associated with the negative talkers like Glenn Beck. We see it in advertising. They always demand that their spots not run in negative talk shows. You talk about a chilling effect! Imagine if those advertisers owned the station!

 

[jas2525]

Allowing the manipulation of formerly competitive markets, particularly within the talk format, has had a chilling effect on the entire nature of the industry.

Huh? Maybe you can be specific what shows were canceled or what talk stations disappeared after 1996. I think the demise of the Fairness Doctrine was a far more important change for talk radio than the 1996 TCA. If you look at the number of stations carrying talk programming, there are far more now than before 1996. More stations in a format means more competition.

I guess you're unaware that there are actually markets where certain companies have bought all the players in a format (ie; talk) and manipulate the FORMERLY competing stations so they don't do much damage to each other. That's lose/lose for employees and listeners alike.

I have actually worked in several med-large markets
where that EXACT scenario unfolded at the companies I worked for. One station would be given the primo (mostly local) content, so it could dominate, while the other former rival got junk second tier syndie garbage and was stuck in the 1-2 share range. The thinking being: better to have one huge station while locking up and marginalizing the other established station. There is NOTHING positive about that, unless you're a shareholder.

You seem like a pretty knowledgable guy, so I'm actually surprised you don't know that dynamic is in play.

 

[TheBigA]

I guess you're unaware that there are actually markets where certain companies have bought all the players in a format (ie; talk) and manipulate the FORMERLY competing stations so they don't do much damage to each other.

I'm very aware of it. But I also know that by owning multiple talk stations, it allowed the public to access a wider range of talk than if those stations were competing. Today in talk radio, the predominant view is conservative. So in New York City, where you have three talk stations each with different owners (WABC, WOR, and WNYM), they compete against each other with basically the same format. And they all mainly use syndicated talk. You might wonder why one wouldn't go progressive or hyper local. But they're competing, and the bulk of the talk audience is conservative, so they all divide the same audience. On the other hand, in markets where the talk stations are owned by the same company, they are more likely to offer divergent opinions because it won't hurt them. It's as you describe, where one station gets Rush & Hannity, while the other station may get Savage or Michael Reagan. I know Clear Channel used the Air America network for a lot of its secondary talk stations, allowing residents access to a completely different point of view. That network would had a lot more touble getting cleared in markets where all the talk stations were competing.

Competition is bad for variety. In the music world, when you have two stations competing in the same format, you end up with very little experimentation in music. They all play the same songs, and even try to play them at exactly the same time. On the other hand, when you have a monopoly, as SiriusXM is in satellite radio, you get 100 unduplicated stations with a wider range of musical variety. That's because there's less risk. You can take chances when you don't have much risk. When you have several stations in the same market with the same format, they can offer fringes of the same format. That's good for the audience, who may prefer the fringe to the mainstream.We had this discussion on the Pittsburgh board, where you have a top rated rock station, WDVE, and two fringe format alternative rock stations, all owned by the same company. You wouldn't have that kind of formatic variety if they were all owned by different companies.

There's also a finite amount of advertising money in a market. The majority of it will go to the popular stations. If you're not airing the most popular talk stations, you're not going to get much advertising money. But if you're a secondary talk station in a cluster, that's not as important. Since the 96 Act, we've seen a huge explosion of talk shows on the radio. It seems like evryone, from former governors and politicians, to former music DJs, are coming out with talk shows. And somehow, they all seem to be getting heard. That would not have been the case before 1996. Back in 1993, Larry King attempted to move his all-night talk show to the daytime, and it failed miserably because there weren't any stations that would pre-empt what they already had to carry it. Today, it's more likely that a new talk show will get carriage, especially if it's hosted by a national name, because there are more stations looking for content.

 

[jas2525]

I guess you're unaware that there are actually markets where certain companies have bought all the players in a format (ie; talk) and manipulate the FORMERLY competing stations so they don't do much damage to each other.

I'm very aware of it. But I also know that by owning multiple talk stations, it allowed the public to access a wider range of talk than if those stations were competing. Today in talk radio, the predominant view is conservative. So in New York City, where you have three talk stations each with different owners (WABC, WOR, and WNYM), they compete against each other with basically the same format. And they all mainly use syndicated talk. You might wonder why one wouldn't go progressive or hyper local. But they're competing, and the bulk of the talk audience is conservative, so they all divide the same audience. On the other hand, in markets where the talk stations are owned by the same company, they are more likely to offer divergent opinions because it won't hurt them. It's as you describe, where one station gets Rush & Hannity, while the other station may get Savage or Michael Reagan. I know Clear Channel used the Air America network for a lot of its secondary talk stations, allowing residents access to a completely different point of view. That network would had a lot more touble getting cleared in markets where all the talk stations were competing.

Competition is bad for variety. In the music world, when you have two stations competing in the same format, you end up with very little experimentation in music. They all play the same songs, and even try to play them at exactly the same time. On the other hand, when you have a monopoly, as SiriusXM is in satellite radio, you get 100 unduplicated stations with a wider range of musical variety. That's because there's less risk. You can take chances when you don't have much risk. When you have several stations in the same market with the same format, they can offer fringes of the same format. That's good for the audience, who may prefer the fringe to the mainstream.We had this discussion on the Pittsburgh board, where you have a top rated rock station, WDVE, and two fringe format alternative rock stations, all owned by the same company. You wouldn't have that kind of formatic variety if they were all owned by different companies.

There's also a finite amount of advertising money in a market. The majority of it will go to the popular stations. If you're not airing the most popular talk stations, you're not going to get much advertising money. But if you're a secondary talk station in a cluster, that's not as important. Since the 96 Act, we've seen a huge explosion of talk shows on the radio. It seems like evryone, from former governors and politicians, to former music DJs, are coming out with talk shows. And somehow, they all seem to be getting heard. That would not have been the case before 1996. Back in 1993, Larry King attempted to move his all-night talk show to the daytime, and it failed miserably because there weren't any stations that would pre-empt what they already had to carry it. Today, it's more likely that a new talk show will get carriage, especially if it's hosted by a national name, because there are more stations looking for content.

You say it's great for everybody because there's a variety of opinion in talk when one company controls the dominant AM signals in a given market.

What you are ignoring is the fact that when a certain company monopolizes a format, the quality of the product suffers. They simply don't have to try as hard and can get away with understaffing---something that would've hurt them in a head to head battle.

Regardless of any ideoligocal leaning, it's better to have two competing stations than two stations comfortable in their unchalleneged postion. I have seen both sides of this and the differences are stark.

 

[TheBigA]

Regardless of any ideoligocal leaning, it's better to have two competing stations than two stations comfortable in their unchalleneged postion. I have seen both sides of this and the differences are stark.

I described the situation in New York, and I don't think quality is better because of competition. In my opinion, all three stations suck. That's not to say they'd be better if they were all owned by the same company. The problem with those stations isn't the lack of competition. It's the lack of interest and motivation. Even with competition, it's easy to see who's going to win and who's going to lose. That's not much of a competition. In my view, it's not the lack of competition that's hurting quality. It's the lack of interest and motivation. The lack of passion. I've seen competing stations in the same market battle it out with the absolute worst quality programming. The popular technique is who can play the most music in an hour. That's not quality programming, in my opinion. That's taking the cheap and easy way out. But it always wins. I'm watching it win right now in a 3 station competition in the same format. The station with the least local talent is winning. Why? They play the most music. How is competition creating better quality radio?

 

[jas2525]

Regardless of any ideoligocal leaning, it's better to have two competing stations than two stations comfortable in their unchalleneged postion. I have seen both sides of this and the differences are stark.

I described the situation in New York, and I don't think quality is better because of competition. In my opinion, all three stations suck. That's not to say they'd be better if they were all owned by the same company. The problem with those stations isn't the lack of competition. It's the lack of interest and motivation. Even with competition, it's easy to see who's going to win and who's going to lose. That's not much of a competition. In my view, it's not the lack of competition that's hurting quality. It's the lack of interest and motivation. The lack of passion. I've seen competing stations in the same market battle it out with the absolute worst quality programming. The popular technique is who can play the most music in an hour. That's not quality programming, in my opinion. That's taking the cheap and easy way out. But it always wins. I'm watching it win right now in a 3 station competition in the same format. The station with the least local talent is winning. Why? They play the most music. How is competition creating better quality radio?

To be honest, I'm talking more about talkradio than musicradio. I am telling you that I have seen firsthand from the inside, on more than one occasion, how some companies will manipulate the only viable AM signals in a market (in talk) and decide who gets to be big and who gets to be cleanup. It goes against everything I ever learned about putting on the best product to get the most listeners. I've worked with different staffs whose morale was decimated for that same reason.

Only shareholders are served by this. Nobody else.

 

[TheBigA]

It sounds like you have a personal ax to grind, because you keep on ignoring my point that in markets where talk competition exists, they do the exact same thing. The problem isn't the lack of competition, and changes to the ownership laws wouldn't make any difference.

 

[jas2525]

It sounds like you have a personal ax to grind, because you keep on ignoring my point that in markets where talk competition exists, they do the exact same thing. The problem isn't the lack of competition, and changes to the ownership laws wouldn't make any difference.

A personal ax to grind? Are you serious?

Anyone who appreciated true competition pre-Telecom would have an "ax to grind", as you call it.

You're notion that Telecom didn't impact the dynamics in the marketplace where competition and quality is concerned is naive at best. The more you speak on this, the more I think you haven't worked a day in your life in this business.

 

[TheBigA]

Anyone who appreciated true competition pre-Telecom would have an "ax to grind", as you call it.

I was there before 1996. I was involved with many of the best-known talk shows in this business. I see nothing in the 96 Act that hurt competition in talk. As I said, there are way more talk stations and talk shows than before deregulation. What has hurt talk is this concentration on angry conservative talk. At one time, talk radio was a lot friendlier. But that's more a function of the changing mood in this country. People are far less tolerant than they once were. Far less interested in the opinions of others. It didn't used to be that way. But there doesn't appear to be an audience for freindly talk any more.

Once again, you've ignored my example of a market where there are three competing talk stations all doing the same thing, and comeptition hasn't done anything for quality. Just answer me why, in a market where there are three competing talk stations, all with different owners (and one is a local owner, not a big corporation), is there no one doing a quality local talk show? Answer that simple question.

 

[flashback]

my question is if the 1996 act was not passed how much of radio as it is now would not have happened?how would it be diffrent now if it was not passed(in your own opinions of course)?and howmany less jobs would be getting cut(in your opinions again)?

 

[TheBigA]

my question is if the 1996 act was not passed how much of radio as it is now would not have happened?how would it be diffrent now if it was not passed(in your own opinions of course)?and howmany less jobs would be getting cut(in your opinions again)?

My view is that there would have been fewer stations, thus fewer jobs. But also, if we assume that new technologies still would have been invented, and the economy still would have tanked, and the advertising marketplace still would have changed as it has in the last 15 years, then I believe radio stations would still have been forced to find ways to economize, and thus fewer jobs.

The truth is that most radio stations eliminated a lot of engineering and news jobs before 1996. You had news & traffic services like Metro providing that kind of content before 1996. You had syndicators like Transtar and Satellite Music Networks providing 24/7 radio formats before 1996. The only difference afterwards is those companies were bought by companies that also owned radio stations, like Cumulus and Clear Channel. But the services were available, thus radio would have become more dependent on them. The history of radio, going back to 1922, has been to find ways to do the same work for less with fewer people. That's why radio networks were created in 1926. This focus on job cuts is inside baseball. The general public doesn't care. Their interest is for fewer interruptions to programming. That's why they go to satellite or the internet. The current generation doesn't have the same attachment to local talent that their parents had. That's sad to see, but it's a fact. So radio needs to adapt to the changing marketplace.

 

[jas2525]

Anyone who appreciated true competition pre-Telecom would have an "ax to grind", as you call it.

I was there before 1996. I was involved with many of the best-known talk shows in this business. I see nothing in the 96 Act that hurt competition in talk. As I said, there are way more talk stations and talk shows than before deregulation. What has hurt talk is this concentration on angry conservative talk. At one time, talk radio was a lot friendlier. But that's more a function of the changing mood in this country. People are far less tolerant than they once were. Far less interested in the opinions of others. It didn't used to be that way. But there doesn't appear to be an audience for freindly talk any more.

Once again, you've ignored my example of a market where there are three competing talk stations all doing the same thing, and comeptition hasn't done anything for quality. Just answer me why, in a market where there are three competing talk stations, all with different owners (and one is a local owner, not a big corporation), is there no one doing a quality local talk show? Answer that simple question.

I have persoanlly witnessed, in several good sized markets, the monopoliztion of the primary AM signals that carried spoken word formats. These companies carefully manipulated the talk genre in the markets to minimize conflict (competition) with each other. This led to the primary newstalker making a lot more cuts, gutting staffs they no longer needed---since they didn't have to worry about "the other guy" outdoing them anymore. Pre-Telecom, you couldn't get away with that crap. You'd get your rear-end handed to you in the book.

I have lived this, yet you're telling me it doesn't exist. Laughable.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Because of all the issues TheBigA has listed, we probably have a radio industry that gives us a smooth, sophisticated (in some cases that is a laugh) and professional sound. To a given listener the CONTENT may be crap, but it is smooth, creamy, homogenize, consistent crap.

Without the TCA there would not be the consolidation of multiple stations under one ownership, so the surviving stations today would be all over the place in style, smoothness, amateurish sound, etc. For some of us , that would not be all bad. We had hayseed radio for years and years in many markets and it worked well because we had a lot of hayseed listeners, so it was a "Grand Bargain". When you go to your local convenience store for a coffee or soft drink, do you find yourself standing in line behind someone you would call a "hayseed"? (Today you have punks that we did not have.) Probably not. Part of what causes the endless discussions in these forums is a disagreement about how we see the audience. With or without the changes in how the government regulates radio broadcasting, the collective appetite of people who can be listeners or people who can turn off the radio and turn to something else is so, so, so different today than what they were back when radio developed a lot of style and tradition that today many forum participants want to see return.

Unfortunately (or maybe luckily!) I don't have recordings of my on-air days. If I had them, and dug them out at Thanksgiving and played them for my grandchildren, I suspect there would be a lot of "Yuk", a lot of yawns, and some not so polite laughter as they listened. Times are different now.

All efforts to describe what the industry would be today without the TCA1996 are something we out here in the county would call SWAGs. (We still have some hayseeds here. I live in the community where 30 or 40 years ago if you went for that coffee or a soda-pop, you might have found yourself elbow-to-elbow with Junior Samples from the TV show Hee Haw. It wouldn't have been called a Convenience Store but would have had a big sign that said FISH BAIT.)

 

[TheBigA]

Without the TCA there would not be the consolidation of multiple stations under one ownership, so the surviving stations today would be all over the place in style, smoothness, amateurish sound, etc.

As you know, I've never done small market radio. Other than my community & public radio work, I've always worked for big companies. I find there's a mythology that before 1996, radio was all mom&pop, live&local. That was not my experience. There were far bigger companies owning radio before 1996 than now. Major insurance companies like Nationwide and National Life. Electronics manufacturers like Westinghouse and RCA. These companies make today's radio companies look like small potatoes. No amateurs at those companies. The really big companies started pulling out of radio in the 1980s. That's when a lot of the original players from the 1920s started to cash out. And they weren't replaced by other big, diversified companies. They were being replaced by radio-only companies. In my view, that was the biggest change in the 96 Act. I clearly remember the big fear was that the TV networks would get bigger and more powerful in radio, but that's not what happened. Companies like NBC and Nationwide got out of radio, and companies like Clear Channel came in. To this day, the major TV players, like NBC, Time-Warner, Fox, and (for the most part) Disney don't own any radio. Meanwhile, most of the big players in radio own nothing else. That lack of diversification is a big mistake, in my opinion. These companies need multiple revenue streams in order to survive.

 

[borderblaster]

Speculating about what would or would not have happened if Telecom 96 wouldn't have happened is interesting, but so is speculating about what would have happened if JFK hadn't been assasinated (2nd term or not? Nixon in 64? LBJ in 68?). What if neither 80-90 or Telecom 96 would have happened? We don't know for sure. Nationwide was more interested in buying naming rights to arenas than operating radio stations by then...but if no buyer like Jacor was available, its hard to tell. We'd have less radio stations with no 80-90; we might have 30 independent owners theoretically in Dayton, Ohio but only the biggest signals would be making money, if surviving at all. So would we have more local talk, more liberal talk, etc..I'm going to say "doubtful". Small business owners are notoriously conservative, and though it may have been a slightly more toned down conservative talk, today's players would still dominate. An ad pie divided by 30 owners instead of 4 wouldn't allow for much ocal talent.