-
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
If we knew then what we know now...
- Thread starter jerry367
- Start date
radioray said:
Interesting theories. My view is the most destructive rule that was ever made in broadcast regulation was the cross-ownership rule. Until that time, some of the best owners in radio history had been newspaper owners. When I think about the stations in Boston, DC, Dallas, Atlanta, Philly, and then the small towns like Louisville and Oklahoma City that were owned by newspapers. Some of the best run radio stations in the history of broadcasting. And yet, because the government feared the power of media concentration, they were banned. This was a move that was bad for radio and bad for newspapers. Without the broadcasting revenue, newspapers like the Washington Star went bankrupt. Without the resources of the newspapers, the quality of the radio stations went down.
This decision, coupled with the increased number of stations on the air, necessitated consolidation within the radio industry, in part because no one else was left to own stations. Even NBC had sold off its radio stations in 1988. Insurance companies, once a huge part of radio ownership, were selling off stations. Newspapers were prohibited. Who was left? Who could afford the cost of the regulation, the infrastructure, and the manpower? There were many decisions that led to the 1996 Act, but things would have been a lot different if the government had not banned cross-ownership of media.
And unfortunately, the government still fears the power of the media, because last year, when they had a chance to reverse the rule, they chose not to. As the current radio owners struggle and sell off assets, and newspapers head towards bankruptcy, I hope the government will see the errors of this decision, and once again allow newspapers to own radio.
TheBigA said:
Good observations!
We are faced with dilemma that has puzzled several generations. How do you put Humpty-Dumpty together again after he goes splat! A lot of people are tied to this idea that if we change the ownership rules so no one, no entity can own more than (xx) [insert the number of your choice] stations, all the ills of the industry will go away and with a couple of band-aids Humpty_Dumpty will be as good as new.
It is the job of investors to take risk, but they like some assurances that there are some parts of the deal they can expect to have stability. If the regulators handed us a sledge hammer and said: "Nobody can have more than 37 stations. Here; take the hammer and go smash the industry that now exists."
To pick a number out of the air, let's assume for a few minutes that the average station would become available for $3.5 million. The average entrepreneur crunches some numbers and decides he/she need 12 stations minimum to make the enterprise worth messing with. So you suck in your stomach, sit down with your accountants and your lawyers and the business analysts and you ask: "Should we plunge $42 million into this business opportunity?" And the answer comes back: Boss, the regulators have decades of history of unpredictable behavior. We need assurances the rules of the game will not change for 27 to 33 years. What if the regulators pull out the sledge hammers again five years from now and smash everything again because they are not seeing the results they hoped for.
At that point the investor says: "Hmmmmm. Forget that. Let's look at some investment that makes sense. What do you think of the future of alternative energy sources."
Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:
Keep in mind that it does not benefit the government in any way to have a strong, vital, and independent media. They'd prefer the media to operate one step away from collapse. Guess what...they have succeeded. Their next step is to put some controls on blogging and the internet.
radioray said:
Without the economies ofconsolidation (yes, there were economies, but not as great as anticipated), there would be more syndication.
Syndication is just a new word for networking. From the 30's well into the 50's network radio commanded most of the program time and dollars in radio. As music-based radio developed, so did new kinds of syndication, starting with things like American Top 40, King Bisquit Flour Hour, and others for music radio and Bill Ballance's Feminine Fourm and others for talk radio. That era also gave birth to tape based format syndication from Drake Chennault, Shulke, Boneville, IGM, and many others. The 80's saw tape give way to satellite with several thousand stations taking pre-rolled formats by tape or off the bird.
Consolidatio did not really make much of a change. Premiere absorbed some smaller companies, and Westwood actually did not as well under consolidation. Of course, there are many many more. Shows like Delilah do well because they get ratings, not because Clear puts her on many stations... when she built her franchise out of Seattle, she was not even syndicated by Clear but she got the numbers, particularly in medium and smaller markets. Her growth had nothing to do with consolidation, and everything to do with talent and the ability to attract solid female nmbers at night, a traditionally weak daypart for AC stations; something like three quarters of the Delialah affiliates are not Clear Channel stations.
Without consolidations, there might be fewer voicetracked shows, but there would be a lot more syndicated shows in more dayparts... paritucularly in the current economy.
smedge2006 said:
As Gr8oldies said, why mandate something listeners don't want?
While in the 60's and 70's, listeners had to put up witht he stuff the FCC mandated in the name of "service" because the FCC did not understand that to many listeners a funny morning show and their favorite songs was, indeed, a service and news and public affairs were not.
Today, listeners will simply abandon radio if the government forces radio to run programming that lsiteners don't want.
The "diversity of voices" argument does not ring true any longer. THose with cable or satellite have dozns of voices, and those with the Internet have thousands and mybe tens of thousands.
What was a dreadful idea in the 60's and 70's would be a disaster for radio today... the cause for most listeners to totally abandon the medium forever.
This conversation takes a lot of interesting twists and turns.
We each have our "wants", we each have our "political bias" and we each have our "personal listening tastes". And as I read I keep having this feeling something, someone, some element of the "formula" is just plain missing. Who is it?
Who are the stakeholders in the process of radio broadcasting?
The owner/licensees of stations
The regulators as in the FCC and Congress
The listeners who think they know what they want
The advertisers and their agents who want results from the money they spend
The employees of broadcasting companies who love what they do, but also want to make a living wage
Somebody is still missing. Who did I leave out?
THE LOCAL COMMUNITIES!!!!
And for powerful, large coverage area stations, local could even mean STATE government and their cumulative residents.
Why would local communities ever look with favor on zoning broadcast antennas when the stations are too proud, too sophisticated to even run full-volume Station IDs mentioning "Podunk" or Cleveland or Orlando or Albany.
Why would local communities ever be worried about the welfare of the broadcasting industry when they don't pay franchise taxes like the phone company and the cable company?
It may be true that a lot of radio listeners THINK they do not want to hear news interrupting their music. And then they wonder why the local crime rate is up, the school systems are turning out students lacking in academic excellence, and they wonder why we have traffic jams. Part of the problem is that people who telegraph to the broadcast industry that they don't want to hear news do not realize they then become part of the crime and education and traffic problem because they are no more connected to their cities and bedroom communities than are their resulting radio stations. They become totally unable to make meaningful choices at the ballot box for local elections which in turn puts un-meaningful forces and candidates into local government.
Once Washington comes to the realization that radio has abandoned their local communities, Washington will drop all pretense that maybe radio is something more than a financial channel. Once that happens, if we think we are disappointed with radio today, you ain't seen nothing yet when it comes to disappointment.
We each have our "wants", we each have our "political bias" and we each have our "personal listening tastes". And as I read I keep having this feeling something, someone, some element of the "formula" is just plain missing. Who is it?
Who are the stakeholders in the process of radio broadcasting?
The owner/licensees of stations
The regulators as in the FCC and Congress
The listeners who think they know what they want
The advertisers and their agents who want results from the money they spend
The employees of broadcasting companies who love what they do, but also want to make a living wage
Somebody is still missing. Who did I leave out?
THE LOCAL COMMUNITIES!!!!
And for powerful, large coverage area stations, local could even mean STATE government and their cumulative residents.
Why would local communities ever look with favor on zoning broadcast antennas when the stations are too proud, too sophisticated to even run full-volume Station IDs mentioning "Podunk" or Cleveland or Orlando or Albany.
Why would local communities ever be worried about the welfare of the broadcasting industry when they don't pay franchise taxes like the phone company and the cable company?
It may be true that a lot of radio listeners THINK they do not want to hear news interrupting their music. And then they wonder why the local crime rate is up, the school systems are turning out students lacking in academic excellence, and they wonder why we have traffic jams. Part of the problem is that people who telegraph to the broadcast industry that they don't want to hear news do not realize they then become part of the crime and education and traffic problem because they are no more connected to their cities and bedroom communities than are their resulting radio stations. They become totally unable to make meaningful choices at the ballot box for local elections which in turn puts un-meaningful forces and candidates into local government.
Once Washington comes to the realization that radio has abandoned their local communities, Washington will drop all pretense that maybe radio is something more than a financial channel. Once that happens, if we think we are disappointed with radio today, you ain't seen nothing yet when it comes to disappointment.
Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:
As others in this thread have said, just because a station airs the news doesn't mean the people will listen. And we have years and years of data that says they won't. If a tree falls in a forest, and no one's around to hear, does anyone die?
Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:
I refer you back a few posts to where I said that Washington doesn't want a strong media. Every time a local station does a little sniffing around, they dig up a skeleton in a closet, and a political career ends. They don't want an educated electorate. That doesn't benefit the kind of partisan politics that plays so well in Washington now. It's all one big cartoon show now. I can't tell the difference between C-SPAN and the Comedy Channel. The government wants radio to perpetuate the happy talk. Keep em numb. Keep em dumb. That's what they want.
Goat, unless you make it illegal to plug in a CD when the news comes on, people who don't want news right then will go away.
BigA oddly enough I live in one of the grandfathered newspaper radio TV crossownership cities and after years of running out of separate buildings and having little to do with each other, they are moving radio and TV into the newspaper building and sharing resources and staff. You will hear TV and newspaper reporters on radio and vice versa.
BigA oddly enough I live in one of the grandfathered newspaper radio TV crossownership cities and after years of running out of separate buildings and having little to do with each other, they are moving radio and TV into the newspaper building and sharing resources and staff. You will hear TV and newspaper reporters on radio and vice versa.
TheBigA said:
I guess I wrote my last post very poorly. I fully understand what you wrote. As a stakeholder, Washington does not have much interest in seeing effective local radio.... whatever that means.
I radio keeps on screwing local communities and state communities and radio gets zoned out of the ability to do business and if local governments quit protecting advertising revenue from taxation and they decided to tax media revenue then pretty soon radio will find itself in a box where it cannot exist.
Then radio will not play music.
Then radio will not broadcast News/Talk.
Then radio will not broadcast sports.
And Washington will be happy to see radio go away without WASHINGTON being the bad guy causing the demise.
Let's see:
the news magazine business is about dead.
the newspaper business is about dead.
we are bound and determined to neuter radio.
So how do we propose to make this experiment in representative democracy work another 100 years?
Everyone will buy one of the new cheap laser printers and we will follow in the footsteps of Ben Franklin and other colonial era guys and all become pamphleteers.
Before you all bombard me with messages that we will all get the information we need via the Internet.... the Internet delivery system will suffer the same weakness radio is exhibiting today. I want my music on the Internet. When the Internet tries to feed me news, information and opinion, the masses will turn it off the same way you say they turn off the radio when it does anything but feed them music.
Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:
The masses don't seem to be that interested. We've created a professional politician, who we pay to take care of that democracy thing for us, while we stay at home and play video games. The professional politician spends all his time raising money to buy campaign advertising. That advertising airs on local radio and TV, and basically keeps them in business. It's all very circular, if you ask me.
Then when disaster hits, all the hands are out to the government. People really seem to like the idea of a caretaker government, that picks up where the caretaker employer leaves off. Someone has to be the provider. It's either work of the government. We've ceased to be a country of self-employed people who take care of ourselves. We depend on employers or the government for medical care, retirement, and our way of life. It used to be church and the community, and probably in some smaller places it still is. But for a lot of people, especially in populated areas, it's employers and the government.
And with regards to in internet, I really fear that will be the next thing that will be taken over by the government somehow. Typically, the government knows it has to be patient, and let the public create a problem that it can come in and solve. Right now, the problem appears to be copyright violations. Stuff is being stolen, and the government can ride in to the rescue with lots of new laws that will hamstring ISPs and telecoms. That's the next great battle, folks, and it's just around the corner. Lots of industries are asking for the government to protect their content, and this is the invitation they want.
Finally another gem from The Big A that I can agree with. Between his tirades and word battles with his detractors, thankfully we have Goat Rodeo Cowboy to spar with him on a level far above what I could ever do, he does now and then come up with something that hits the nail preverbally on the head.
Sadly, his social commentary in para 2 is true. I am proud to say I am one of those self-employed types who works hard and has enjoyed modest success in my ventures. Probably to the point where I have too much time to peruse these boards! And dont get me started on the professional politician, that is one thing that really pushes my button.
And dear readers, if you have any doubt that the guv'mint doesnt have their eye on the internet, read, and then reread, para 3.
Keep it real Big A, keep in concise, and keep from wandering off into the forest to do battle with your tormentors. Then when we finally find out who you are, we will have that AHA moment Oprah tells us about. Meanwhile we will have GRC to keep the peace.
Sadly, his social commentary in para 2 is true. I am proud to say I am one of those self-employed types who works hard and has enjoyed modest success in my ventures. Probably to the point where I have too much time to peruse these boards! And dont get me started on the professional politician, that is one thing that really pushes my button.
And dear readers, if you have any doubt that the guv'mint doesnt have their eye on the internet, read, and then reread, para 3.
Keep it real Big A, keep in concise, and keep from wandering off into the forest to do battle with your tormentors. Then when we finally find out who you are, we will have that AHA moment Oprah tells us about. Meanwhile we will have GRC to keep the peace.
T
truthaboutradio
Guest
If you think about it, this gets down to the age old question, message or messanger. Traditionally the saying is "don't kill the messenger" but in this case, the messanger's are what have killed this business. In truth, there was nothing wrong with the theory of consolidation.
The earliest leaders in consolidation, Mel Karmazin's CBS/Infinity, Randy Michael's Jacor, etc. were innovators who believed in the business and used the new rules to acquire and UPGRADE lots of radio stations. The problem was that once the consolidation phase was finished, the "winners" of the consolidation race inexplicably parted company with the brilliant radio people who conolidated the business and put it in the hands of so called "operators" who not only don't share or most importantly do not in any way, shape or form understand the vision that folks like Mel and Randy assembled those companies with.
So now, instead of leaders who saw the greatness of what can be, we have visionless fools like John Hogan, Lew Dickey and Farrid Suleman.
Let's choose up teams for an all time battle. We'll call it "Battle of the Radio Titans." We each get three draft picks, and each draft pick can bring their "team" with them to the battle. I choose Karmazin, Michaels and Larry Wilson. You get Hogan, Dickey and Suleman.
Who do you think wins the battle?
De-regulation saved a failing business (look at trade magazines 92-95). Stupidity is killing it.
The earliest leaders in consolidation, Mel Karmazin's CBS/Infinity, Randy Michael's Jacor, etc. were innovators who believed in the business and used the new rules to acquire and UPGRADE lots of radio stations. The problem was that once the consolidation phase was finished, the "winners" of the consolidation race inexplicably parted company with the brilliant radio people who conolidated the business and put it in the hands of so called "operators" who not only don't share or most importantly do not in any way, shape or form understand the vision that folks like Mel and Randy assembled those companies with.
So now, instead of leaders who saw the greatness of what can be, we have visionless fools like John Hogan, Lew Dickey and Farrid Suleman.
Let's choose up teams for an all time battle. We'll call it "Battle of the Radio Titans." We each get three draft picks, and each draft pick can bring their "team" with them to the battle. I choose Karmazin, Michaels and Larry Wilson. You get Hogan, Dickey and Suleman.
Who do you think wins the battle?
De-regulation saved a failing business (look at trade magazines 92-95). Stupidity is killing it.
Lest anyone misread Nostalgia let me set the record straight: I am NOT some kind of dragon slayer out here to engage in mortal battle with TheBigA. I have great respect for the views and the writing skills of Mr. A.
He and I look through the telescope from opposite ends. He indicates he has always lived in highly populated areas and that shapes his view of things political and social and economic. Over half my life has been invested in "flyover country".... rural geography where population density is not part of our daily vocabulary. I daily travel through the same intersections where Junior Samples (of Hee Haw fame and notoriety) once delighted the local coffee shop with his tales and nonsense. That shapes my view of things political and social and economic. But keep in mind.... I lived for over 30 years in a state capital city where I did talk radio and I lobbied the state legislature. Don't let the bandanna hanging out of my jeans pocket warp your evaluation of what I have to say.
What you have written here is a continuation of a conversation that my Dad and I carried on for the last 20 years of his life. One day after sitting through a rather stinging tirade about the evils of all corporations, and a great sell job on why EVERY person in business should be a proprietor and never try to own and operate an enterprise larger than he could personally supervise.... I looked at him and offered this challenge: Who is going to bild jetliners and bombers with an enterprise that small? Who can build ships and barges that float out into the Gulf of Mexico and drill for oil and ship it back to shore with an enterprise that small? Who can own and operate a hospital large enough to do research and provide us with heart by-pass surgery and find the cure for cancer with an enterprise that small?
And when a company (corporation) has enough employees on their payroll to build airliners or operated a major teaching and research hospital which by necessity runs 24 hours a day, seven days a week, what church congregation or local community has the resources to look after the educating of children, the health needs and the retirement needs of that workforce? That's like asking a non-incorporated entrepreneur to build a battleship in the garage behind his farmhouse.
What is the theme of this thread? "If we knew then what we know now...." As much as this old country boy hates it... to have a community large enough to both guide and serve enterprises the size of Microsoft, Walmart, General Electric, Home Depot, Kaiser Permanente, Eli Lilly and Goldman Sachs you can only turn to one oversize grouchy growling bear called The Federal Government. What we are arguing about is who feeds and potty-trains the bear.
Once we figure that out, feeding and potty-training radio will be a piece of cake.
He and I look through the telescope from opposite ends. He indicates he has always lived in highly populated areas and that shapes his view of things political and social and economic. Over half my life has been invested in "flyover country".... rural geography where population density is not part of our daily vocabulary. I daily travel through the same intersections where Junior Samples (of Hee Haw fame and notoriety) once delighted the local coffee shop with his tales and nonsense. That shapes my view of things political and social and economic. But keep in mind.... I lived for over 30 years in a state capital city where I did talk radio and I lobbied the state legislature. Don't let the bandanna hanging out of my jeans pocket warp your evaluation of what I have to say.
TheBigA said:
What you have written here is a continuation of a conversation that my Dad and I carried on for the last 20 years of his life. One day after sitting through a rather stinging tirade about the evils of all corporations, and a great sell job on why EVERY person in business should be a proprietor and never try to own and operate an enterprise larger than he could personally supervise.... I looked at him and offered this challenge: Who is going to bild jetliners and bombers with an enterprise that small? Who can build ships and barges that float out into the Gulf of Mexico and drill for oil and ship it back to shore with an enterprise that small? Who can own and operate a hospital large enough to do research and provide us with heart by-pass surgery and find the cure for cancer with an enterprise that small?
And when a company (corporation) has enough employees on their payroll to build airliners or operated a major teaching and research hospital which by necessity runs 24 hours a day, seven days a week, what church congregation or local community has the resources to look after the educating of children, the health needs and the retirement needs of that workforce? That's like asking a non-incorporated entrepreneur to build a battleship in the garage behind his farmhouse.
What is the theme of this thread? "If we knew then what we know now...." As much as this old country boy hates it... to have a community large enough to both guide and serve enterprises the size of Microsoft, Walmart, General Electric, Home Depot, Kaiser Permanente, Eli Lilly and Goldman Sachs you can only turn to one oversize grouchy growling bear called The Federal Government. What we are arguing about is who feeds and potty-trains the bear.
Once we figure that out, feeding and potty-training radio will be a piece of cake.
Here's some people who weren't too happy with the radio status quo when it meant none of their local radio stations had information on the snowstorm that had shut down the power, TV, computers and cellphones in their corner of western Pennsylvania:
http://www.observer-reporter.com/or/hazlettstory/02-15-2010-Hazlett-column
http://www.observer-reporter.com/or/washnews/02-22-2010-Hazlett-column
http://www.observer-reporter.com/or/hazlettstory/02-15-2010-Hazlett-column
http://www.observer-reporter.com/or/washnews/02-22-2010-Hazlett-column
smedge2006 said:
Like the BigA, I wonder whether the reporter talked to any stations about this.
I find strange that the reporter would expect stations that don't feature news to suddenly field a staff of reporters and stop playing "10 in a row."
But mostly, I find strange that the reporter did not reflect on the economy as a possible cause. When Pittsburgh radio revenues are off over 40% from their pre-recession peak, perhaps the question is, "how does a business that has lost revenue in excess of its profit margin continue to operate, even after making cost cuts?"
I also noted that Pandora did not run any Waynsburg weather. :-\
And I further noted that the newspaper, in its "about us" section, has been busy consolidating, mostly by buying and "merging" (that means "closing") area papers for a century or so. Isn't it nice to be in an unregulated business!
I'm in favor of radio being completely deregulated as soon as everyone can own a viable piece of the electromagnetic spectrum for the price of a laser printer. Until then, the public owns the spectrum, and licensees are obligated to serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity as a condition of licensing channel space.
- Status