-
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
DavidEduardo said:
And amazingly, almost 15 years later, the FCC still doesn't know what Congress intended with their instructions about radio ownership. Michael Powell made the mistake of assuming they intended more de-regulation, and got his hands slapped (although they gave him no further instructions, even though he requested them). And Kevin Martin saw what happened to Powell, and stuck to indecency. The new guy seems to still be hanging pictures on his office wall (after almost a year), so he hasn't telegraphed how he's going to handle ownership. I'm not expecting brilliance from a Chairman that hasn't done anything in a year.
What's amazing is that there are "radio pros" on here still defending consolidation, long after it has proven to be the catalyst for the near-destruction of our industry.
Yes, I understand that a few of you made a ton of money selling your properties for overvalued "bubble" prices, and I trust that you may be blogging from your yachts. Congratulations.
But for nearly everyone else then-and-now employed in the radio industry, it has meant 14 fairly dreadful years. Tens of thousands of slashed jobs. Permanently (well, 14 years' worth, so far) depressed wages. Very few entry jobs, and very few top-level jobs--and still thousands of overqualified people fighting for every opening (because, yes, it's still a great way to make a living--it ain't digging ditches).
And you're happy with this?
David--you're still working in radio? Big A--you're still working in radio?
What's your take? Is it "Hey, I've got mine. They can go screw themselves?"
And this is what you want?
Yes, I understand that a few of you made a ton of money selling your properties for overvalued "bubble" prices, and I trust that you may be blogging from your yachts. Congratulations.
But for nearly everyone else then-and-now employed in the radio industry, it has meant 14 fairly dreadful years. Tens of thousands of slashed jobs. Permanently (well, 14 years' worth, so far) depressed wages. Very few entry jobs, and very few top-level jobs--and still thousands of overqualified people fighting for every opening (because, yes, it's still a great way to make a living--it ain't digging ditches).
And you're happy with this?
David--you're still working in radio? Big A--you're still working in radio?
What's your take? Is it "Hey, I've got mine. They can go screw themselves?"
And this is what you want?
I don't know that anyone is so much saying consolodation is the greatest thing since sliced bread. My take and only my take is that some consolodation was neccesary but it should have been on a case by case basis. We do no good by making things up rather than looking things up however.
s"This isn't a matter of different experience. He's inventing a lot of stuff, or jumping to conclusions. He's also saying this bill was not discussed in the public, and I know that's just plain wrong. It's all in the Congressional Record, with exact time posted for each day. That's where I got all my information."
You do know the congressional record is pretty much fiction, right? That something where no debate occurred can seem like weeks of debate occured because congressment get their people to write stuff for them (sometimes it is lobbyists doing the writing) and then they ask "Mr. Speaker I would like to ask that my remarks get added to the record" and no actual debate takes place.....you do realize that, yes?
You do know the congressional record is pretty much fiction, right? That something where no debate occurred can seem like weeks of debate occured because congressment get their people to write stuff for them (sometimes it is lobbyists doing the writing) and then they ask "Mr. Speaker I would like to ask that my remarks get added to the record" and no actual debate takes place.....you do realize that, yes?
How many people were truly making a middle class income working in radio in the 70s,80s and 90s?. Not many. Jocks weren't by and large rolling in dough. Let me ask in a different way: if we had 7/7/7, radio stations being owned by either insurance companies or mom and pop, would these owners have been able enough to withstand all the alternative media and advertising sources AND
be able to keep large staffs employed to keep playin' the hits live 24/7? I think many of us assume that radio would have been isolated and time would have stood still if '96 never happened.
be able to keep large staffs employed to keep playin' the hits live 24/7? I think many of us assume that radio would have been isolated and time would have stood still if '96 never happened.
"Hate to point this out, but 7-7-7 was eliminated in 1984.The most interesting thing to me about this was that every purchase by Clear Channel and other big companies had to be approved not just by the FCC, but by the DOJ and the FTC. They were also open to scrutiny of media watchdog groups, community groups, and anti-corporate groups. Anyone could have stopped these sales from taking place, and no one raised a single red flag."
That is simply not true, I remember reading William Safires comments about media concentration and anti-trust circa 1998.
"The really funny part to me is that I know a lot of the employees who worked at these stations, and they all bought stock in their companies and made a lot of money as their companies grew. They'd brag about it to their friends who were still working at smaller companies. They also had 401Ks that were filled with company stock. The idea that only the top people made money as the radio companies grew is absolute fiction."
Sure, some people "won" with this. Doesn't mean it was right or best for the industry. The subject of this thread is "if we know then what we know now" not "did some people hit the lottery by being in the right place at the right time and buying stock".
That is simply not true, I remember reading William Safires comments about media concentration and anti-trust circa 1998.
"The really funny part to me is that I know a lot of the employees who worked at these stations, and they all bought stock in their companies and made a lot of money as their companies grew. They'd brag about it to their friends who were still working at smaller companies. They also had 401Ks that were filled with company stock. The idea that only the top people made money as the radio companies grew is absolute fiction."
Sure, some people "won" with this. Doesn't mean it was right or best for the industry. The subject of this thread is "if we know then what we know now" not "did some people hit the lottery by being in the right place at the right time and buying stock".
"You claimed Clear and the NAB scammed and lied to Congress. In fact, nearly half of all stations were losing money in the early 90's, and lobbying is not illegal and presenting one's desires and proposals for legislation isn't illegal either."
That is often claimed and never shown to be true, just claimed. It would be intersting to see a link to that.
It would also be interesting to see -
* How many of these stations were higher-end of dial AM's. I don't think anyone would have objected to consolodating some of those, especially in markets under Top 50.
* How much of the "loss" was caused even back then of over-paying for stations. If pay over 8 times trailing cashflow for any business, I don't care if it's a radio station or a dry cleaners, don't come back to the public later and claim you are losing money (not disclosing that what you are losing it on is the big mortgage you have to pay).
That is often claimed and never shown to be true, just claimed. It would be intersting to see a link to that.
It would also be interesting to see -
* How many of these stations were higher-end of dial AM's. I don't think anyone would have objected to consolodating some of those, especially in markets under Top 50.
* How much of the "loss" was caused even back then of over-paying for stations. If pay over 8 times trailing cashflow for any business, I don't care if it's a radio station or a dry cleaners, don't come back to the public later and claim you are losing money (not disclosing that what you are losing it on is the big mortgage you have to pay).
amfmxm said:
Proven how? By whom?
I think that, in many ways, consolodation has saved much of the industry. Look away from the high profile Citadel-like issues to Larry Wilson in Portland, the Ingstads in the upper Midwest and many other smaller scale consolidaters who have given some stability to many markets that were decimated by Docket 80-90 and the basic fact that America has been over-radioed since the 50's.
In this economy, nobody is blogging from yachts... dinghys, maybe. Folks who cashed in in the best years generally invested their money... and they have lost 30% to 40% of it, just like the rest of us.
Those jobs had to be eliminated, because much of the industry was unprofitable. Instead of one high profile bankruptcy, we had owners of a couple of stations defaulting and reselling to someone who would do the same thing in a few years. We had a Groundhog Day of people trying to make nonviable stations pay off, but it was just a new owner every few years for the same dog station...
There have been 10 to 12 years of no-growth, less-than-inflation growth or negative growth in radio. One would not expect to be getting lots of raises in that environment.
It may not be manual labor, but the industry is off a third in billings, and so there is contraction. Maybe this is not as bad as the incandescent lamp business, but radio is equally subject to the changing times. Remember, we are now in the decade where some early station will celebrate 100 years of tracable heritage.
I am surprised it is not worse. That must mean that most owners, managers, sellers, air talent, engineers and such are doing a surprisingly good job.
Follow the link.
I have not owned stations for 40 years. I've been dependent on those "shrinking wages" just like most everyone else.
Could I have seen this 20 years ago? 10 years ago? Nope. But one of my past "report to" people said that my card should read "agent of change" and I am enjoying this. The consumer has so many options. Whether radio can adapt to the new technology remains to be seen. I will follow the lsitener, not the banker, and I'll enjoy that ride.
I won't even try to respond to every sentence, but I'll toss a couple of thoughts your way.
Yes, David, you and I--and presumably others in this thread--continue to do well as employees, though I will submit that consolidation hammered earnings for empoyee/executives (market managers, programming VPs, et cetera) as much as anyone else. I still make a great living in radio, but it's a fraction of pre-1996 days--simply because the market was swamped with radio executives, GMs, MMs, DOS-es... and jocks & PDs... and every other job title. The model was "buy a bunch, strip 'em down, run 'em cheap and find the next Greater Fool to buy 'em for even more money."
But as RadioRay cogently noted, most "losses" experienced by radio firms relate more to overpaying for properties rather than operational P&L. I'm intimately familiar with that side of the biz, and have been for decades--and continue to be on a daily basis--so I'm not easily swayed by BS.
In the bigger picture, though, the ultimate cost has been how radio is perceived by the general public: a shadow of its former self.
Stupidity run amok.
Yes, David, you and I--and presumably others in this thread--continue to do well as employees, though I will submit that consolidation hammered earnings for empoyee/executives (market managers, programming VPs, et cetera) as much as anyone else. I still make a great living in radio, but it's a fraction of pre-1996 days--simply because the market was swamped with radio executives, GMs, MMs, DOS-es... and jocks & PDs... and every other job title. The model was "buy a bunch, strip 'em down, run 'em cheap and find the next Greater Fool to buy 'em for even more money."
But as RadioRay cogently noted, most "losses" experienced by radio firms relate more to overpaying for properties rather than operational P&L. I'm intimately familiar with that side of the biz, and have been for decades--and continue to be on a daily basis--so I'm not easily swayed by BS.
In the bigger picture, though, the ultimate cost has been how radio is perceived by the general public: a shadow of its former self.
Stupidity run amok.
amfmxm: In what industry has it not been the case that there are more talented and qualified people than ever seeking positions, and having to settle for bargain basement salaries/rates to even be employed? I don't know how, even if consolodation never occurred, things would be different, and in fact if it was still companies having to have one station each in seven different markets (I'm assuming most AMs still wouldn't be viable) if they would even be able to compete with the onslaught of internet/cellphones/500 cable channels/local search, etc. let alone pay nice salaries and have a full jock staff. That's where much of the argument lies; would radio still be operating like it was the 70s even now and doing so successfully?
gr8oldies said:
Are you comparing the current two-year recession with post-96/pre-96 radio? Separate issues.
Has the recession worsened the financial state of radio? Sure. And, in some cases, did certain companies that had already veered into the ditch get insult added to injury by the recession? Sure.
And has new media had some effect on radio? Sure. But not severely, at this point--and not directly. Again, a separate issue.
Very few industries are operating in 2010 like they were in the seventies. I certainly haven't suggested a rewind to 1970.
Here's the bigger picture. For the past hundred years-or-so, there has been a tug of war between monopolists/oligopolists and small businesses. Retail--banks, grocery, hardware, automotive, food & beverage--have all gone through it. And, over the past 30 years, in particular, small business has lost the struggle. Bank of America, Wal-Mart, Home Depot, CarMax, McDonalds have been the winners. The losers have not all been "moms & pops"--but since 1980 the field has been tilted in favor of the monopolists/oligopolists... the "consolidators."
If you own the monopoly, it's good for you (I personally know a billionaire, and he likes it). But, for the most part, it's not so good for everyone else.
So where do you all fit in? Billionaires or non-billionaires.
And if you're not a billionaire, do you really think that monopoly/consolidation is the best model for you?
amfmxm said:
I just received Reed’s weekly email and sent him a note to drop on by. This should be fun.
Not that the “world is flat” duo, with their 18,000 posts (geeze) will ever get it. . . but for the rest of us, it will connect to what we already know. You already know their limp comeback. . . “but it was in the congressional record and Al was on Letterman one night and mentioned it.” And yet somehow Lowery and the consolidators didn’t abandon their plans. Shocker. Maybe Lowery figured that not many read the congressiional record, or could even find it on their dial-up internet computer.
The one thing I hope Reed can shed some light on is the background to the ’95 NAB. The NAB prez was so in pocket of the consolidators. His goal was to make sure that not one topic on consolidation was ever presented. . . job, well done. Consolidation was not even mentioned in the NAB newsletter that preceded the convention.
Had the NAB been on the up-an-up, scheduling a meeting that discussed consolidation would have been most interesting. Aside from all the negatives, there would have likely been some pros. Station owners ready to cash out at +12X would have welcomed consolidation. Not sure that the GM, DOS and PD folks would have liked the idea of losing their gigs. . . 4 stations 4 GMs, 4 consolidated stations 1 GM. . . and on down the line.
If Reed drops on by, I am sure that the two stalkers will be by to up their posts to 19,000.
Yes, I know, this board should just be a continuous whine-fest. Woe is me, I can't be a DJ anymore.
There really are no "monopolies" in radio. Clear Channel has quite a presence locally, but they do not own every viable signal, nor do they take all the revenue.
Wal-Mart, Carmax, Home Depot etc win because people choose to do business with them. maybe you think that shouldn't be allowed and people should have to do all their shopping before 5pm, (noon on Thursday so the owners can play golf), pay for downtown parking and pay much higher prices.
Wal-mart and McDonald's are certainly no monopoly. Wal-Mart has competition from not only other big boxes like Meijer and Target, but from deep discount grocers like Aldis, and even Dollar General.
Not to mention many McDonald's are owned by mom and pop franchisees.
There really are no "monopolies" in radio. Clear Channel has quite a presence locally, but they do not own every viable signal, nor do they take all the revenue.
Wal-Mart, Carmax, Home Depot etc win because people choose to do business with them. maybe you think that shouldn't be allowed and people should have to do all their shopping before 5pm, (noon on Thursday so the owners can play golf), pay for downtown parking and pay much higher prices.
Wal-mart and McDonald's are certainly no monopoly. Wal-Mart has competition from not only other big boxes like Meijer and Target, but from deep discount grocers like Aldis, and even Dollar General.
Not to mention many McDonald's are owned by mom and pop franchisees.
gr8oldies said:
What is the deal with you guys with your thousands of posts saying stuff like that?
For whatever reason the radio site has attracted the true whack-jobs. . . c’mon 7,682 posts of bashing. At 10 minutes per post you have spent a solid non-stop 53 days of posting drivel. What’s up with that . . . nothing better to do?
Ohhhh, and I love the, "I worked in big markets (no name), and I was really important (doing what?) and I know a lot of important people (really, who?)." You are delusional, right? Sad.
Fran said:
Consolidation required both sellers and buyers. That meant that a very significant number of broadcasters were for it, for either the cash-out or buy-in. The half of all stations that traditionally were not profitable certainly harboured a lot of peole who thought they could sell and get out whole.
What was to discuss? I did not sense an concern from owners at that stage, or even back to when the 7/7 radio model was relaxed. The certain discontent at the staff level was reflected several years later when one exhibitor passed out those "Do you know who owns you?" buttons.
12x pricing on leading cash flow was the model from the mid-80's on. That was way before '96.
I'm sure that engineers felt the same way when remote control was approved, or when the requirement for 1st Phone operators for non-critical DA's was removed. Things change.
I get a little tired of the "half of all stations traditionally were not profitable" line. How many of those were designed to be "not profitable" so the owners had a write-off? How many were "not profitable", but paid tidy salaries to key people, along with serious amounts of trade, company cars, etc.? How many were "not profitable" because they were spoilers for another owner's big property, or flankers for the owner's bigger property?
Yes, there were bad signals, bad properties, and bad owners. Most of them went under of their own accord - just like what's happening now. Tell me how many OWNERS were "not profitable". It was sure WAY less than half.
Yes, there were bad signals, bad properties, and bad owners. Most of them went under of their own accord - just like what's happening now. Tell me how many OWNERS were "not profitable". It was sure WAY less than half.
BTW, speaking of whining, how about all the whining about "It's not our stupid business decisions that have hamstrung radio, reduced the quality of programming, and left listeners less than enthused about our product. It's the recession, the record companies, the Internet, the banks - in short, everybody else's fault."
- Status