Local content on satellite radio

[gdvanc]

Today's Wall Street Journal carried an article entitled "Satellite Radio's New Local Content Riles Broadcasters". [page B1]

XMSR & SIRI are "moving quickly to add local features to their services": XMSR through its acquisition of WCS Wireless and its spectrum holdings, and SIRI through technology it has developed that could add 25% more capacity in the spectrum it owns.

Each may use this new capacity to increase its locally-targeted offerings.

The NAB, of course, plans to fight this. It insists that the satellite broadcasters were never supposed to be allowed to carry local programming.

I'm curious what the radio professionals and radio mavens here think about the satellite companies' plans and the NAB's position. Obviously the satellites have an advantage in being able to provide more stations in a given market, but is it an *unfair* advantage? Should they be restricted in some way to 'compensate' for the fact that terrestrial broadcasters have limits on station ownership in a given market? Will this likely lead to further easing of those ownership restrictions? And, ultimately, what is best for the listening public?

An interesting paragraph from the article:

[ quote ]
Broadcasters already have been hammering at the issue, with many running announcements that put down their satellite competitors' lack of localization. "I like the radio I already have -- the local news, the local weather," a woman explains in one spot run by radio station chain Entercom Communications Corp., which ends with the tag line, "Brought to you by your hometown station."
[ /quote ]

Right. My hometown station owned by a company from Bala Cynwyd, Pa

 

[nuzguy]

> Today's Wall Street Journal carried an article entitled
> "Satellite Radio's New Local Content Riles Broadcasters".
> [page B1]
>
> XMSR & SIRI are "moving quickly to add local features to
> their services": XMSR through its acquisition of WCS
> Wireless and its spectrum holdings, and SIRI through
> technology it has developed that could add 25% more capacity
> in the spectrum it owns.
>
> Each may use this new capacity to increase its
> locally-targeted offerings.
>
> The NAB, of course, plans to fight this. It insists that the
> satellite broadcasters were never supposed to be allowed to
> carry local programming.
>
> I'm curious what the radio professionals and radio mavens
> here think about the satellite companies' plans and the
> NAB's position. Obviously the satellites have an advantage
> in being able to provide more stations in a given market,
> but is it an *unfair* advantage? Should they be restricted
> in some way to 'compensate' for the fact that terrestrial
> broadcasters have limits on station ownership in a given
> market? Will this likely lead to further easing of those
> ownership restrictions? And, ultimately, what is best for
> the listening public?
>
> An interesting paragraph from the article:
>
> [ quote ]
> Broadcasters already have been hammering at the issue, with
> many running announcements that put down their satellite
> competitors' lack of localization. "I like the radio I
> already have -- the local news, the local weather," a woman
> explains in one spot run by radio station chain Entercom
> Communications Corp., which ends with the tag line, "Brought
> to you by your hometown station."
> [ /quote ]
>
> Right. My hometown station owned by a company from Bala
> Cynwyd, Pa


Perhaps if some of those station groups had been more concerned about providing "local services" instead of force feeding corporate radio to the public, satellite radio wouldn't pose such a problem. Listeners in a given market have grown tired of hearing endless commercials interrupted by program content that is in no way related to what goes on in the station's host city.

Terrestrial radio had the market cornered for much too long and assumed the audience would always be receptive to whatever weak forms of programming cookie cutter radio turned out. They were entirely too comfortable thinking they were the only game in town. Now that satellite is tearing up local radio controlled by distant owners, there's this indignant "how dare they invade our turf" uproar. The two million or so of us who have opted for Sirius and XM are in no way sympathetic. I've been on Sirius for more than two years now, have listened to two or so local stattions for a total of maybe an hour during that time, and am planning on removing the AM/FM radio in favor of a dash mount Sirius receiver. I lost no "local service" when going to satellite because since the takeover by giant radio groups there's been no local service to lose.

 

[Ward]

Look, we can all point the finger at WHY radio is in the state it's in. I want to know what ANYBODY is doing to FIX IT?!?

Radio is broke. It's time to repair it. Good programming and aggressive marketing are two of the best ways I know to repair and truly compete with any other medium. We all know WHY, now let's decide on WHAT to do about it and then...DO IT!

 

[gdvanc]

Two other things:

XM filed with the FCC for the WCS license transfer on July 15 and the FCC has opened the comment period for that transfer. If you have an opinion you'd like to share with Uncle Charlie, I guess now would be the time.

Also, there's a bill in subcommittee that calls for restrictions on satellite radio. From the article:

[ quote ]
The day after XM announced its plans, NAB President Eddie Fritts sent a letter to every member of the House of Representatives, calling XM's pending acquisition "part of a longstanding pattern of deception by the satellite radio industry."

He asked members to support a bill introduced this year by Chip Pickering (R., Miss.) and Gene Green (D., Texas) that would prevent satellite services from using their on-the-ground repeaters, which strengthen the national satellite signal in certain areas, to deliver content to some locations and not others.

The bill also would mandate the FCC to examine the legality of delivering local content on nationally distributed channels and would forbid satellite radio from using any technology created in the future to deliver local content. So far, the bill is stuck at the subcommittee level with little chance of seeing action before the autumn at earliest.
[ /quote ]

If you have opinions on this as well, mightn't hurt to let your representatives know.

 

[nuzguy]

> Look, we can all point the finger at WHY radio is in the
> state it's in. I want to know what ANYBODY is doing to FIX
> IT?!?
>
> Radio is broke. It's time to repair it. Good programming
> and aggressive marketing are two of the best ways I know to
> repair and truly compete with any other medium. We all know
> WHY, now let's decide on WHAT to do about it and then...DO
> IT!

You're right, radio is definitely broken. But WE can't fix it. That's up to the broadcast groups themselves. And as long as the business is in the profit mode it's in with no more effort from CC, Cumulus, and all the rest than just keeping their stations on the air, it's not likely that a fix will be forthcoming.
>

 

[BrainDeadPrez]

You absolutely nailed it. It's ONLY a question of dollars and cents here, and has nothing to do with terrestrial station owners doing ANYTHING to "serve" their communities. They don't want the competition. I've said this before, but this is no different than when cable TV came to town. More choices on the dial, but for a price. And there's plenty of local content on cable...just watch "The Weather Channel" cut-ins every 10 minutes. I don't recall 4, 5 or 8 crying "foul" when TWC signed on. I'm with you...I have no sympathy whatsoever for this crybaby attempt by the corporate owners.

I've had satellite (XM) for over 2 years now, too, and when I tune in to terrestrial radio here and there, I think of it more as a DXing/'for old time's sake' basis...sorta like calling up distant relatives once or twice a year just to see if they're still alive.

Another appropriate time to repeat the immortal words of Lowry Mays: "We're not in the business of radio, we're in the business of making money."

> Perhaps if some of those station groups had been more
> concerned about providing "local services" instead of force
> feeding corporate radio to the public, satellite radio
> wouldn't pose such a problem. Listeners in a given market
> have grown tired of hearing endless commercials interrupted
> by program content that is in no way related to what goes on
> in the station's host city.
>
> Terrestrial radio had the market cornered for much too long
> and assumed the audience would always be receptive to
> whatever weak forms of programming cookie cutter radio
> turned out. They were entirely too comfortable thinking
> they were the only game in town. Now that satellite is
> tearing up local radio controlled by distant owners, there's
> this indignant "how dare they invade our turf" uproar. The
> two million or so of us who have opted for Sirius and XM are
> in no way sympathetic. I've been on Sirius for more than
> two years now, have listened to two or so local stattions
> for a total of maybe an hour during that time, and am
> planning on removing the AM/FM radio in favor of a dash
> mount Sirius receiver. I lost no "local service" when going
> to satellite because since the takeover by giant radio
> groups there's been no local service to lose.
>

 

[Slambang]

> > Look, we can all point the finger at WHY radio is in the
> > state it's in. I want to know what ANYBODY is doing to
> FIX
> > IT?!?
> >
> > Radio is broke. It's time to repair it. Good programming
>
> > and aggressive marketing are two of the best ways I know
> to
> > repair and truly compete with any other medium. We all
> know
> > WHY, now let's decide on WHAT to do about it and then...DO
>
> > IT!
>
> You're right, radio is definitely broken. But WE can't fix
> it. That's up to the broadcast groups themselves. And as
> long as the business is in the profit mode it's in with no
> more effort from CC, Cumulus, and all the rest than just
> keeping their sdtations on the air, it's not likely that a
> fix will be forthcoming.
> >
>
You can also thank NAB for turning their backs on the public. With their general cowardice towards their own industry along with their self serving nature, they helped plant the seeds of revolutionary change with internet broadcasting,podcasting and sat radio. People want to choose from multiple options of programming,not be demoed or narrowcasted to. People want legacy stations they heard as a kid and want to share those stations with their kids, not have syndicated programming and music predetermined by some suit in corporate. I quit listening to AM/FM (save for weather) when I bought my sirius.

 

[edwardrmurrow]

Braindeadprez and Nuzguy really tackled this one. As long as you only go after the quick profit not the long term investment,then you hamper any growth. The quick profit is syndicated shows not investmenting in local shows. If there is a hit local show then you dilute it by offering it to other markets and it starts to wane in the market of it's origin. The "bellyachers"and"whiners"who said radio wasn't making money before 1996 were too cheap to be in the industry to begin with and if they weren't making money, where the hell did they get it in order to buy more stations soon after telecom '96 became law? HELLO? I said it before, radio is more like a real estate market not a broadcasting profession. They believe more spots an hour will increase their profit margins, but how if they continue to buy more stations, dilute their programming content with sub par cheap entertainment and talent,thus alienating loyal listeners in hopes of attracting new ones,who never appear? For radio to survive they need to have true veteran broadcasters run it and be in control instead of realtors.

 

[nuzguy]

> > > Look, we can all point the finger at WHY radio is in the
>
> > > state it's in. I want to know what ANYBODY is doing to
> > FIX
> > > IT?!?
> > >
> > > Radio is broke. It's time to repair it. Good
> programming
> >
> > > and aggressive marketing are two of the best ways I know
>
> > to
> > > repair and truly compete with any other medium. We all
> > know
> > > WHY, now let's decide on WHAT to do about it and
> then...DO
> >
> > > IT!
> >
> > You're right, radio is definitely broken. But WE can't
> fix
> > it. That's up to the broadcast groups themselves. And as
>
> > long as the business is in the profit mode it's in with no
>
> > more effort from CC, Cumulus, and all the rest than just
> > keeping their sdtations on the air, it's not likely that a
>
> > fix will be forthcoming.
> > >
> >
> You can also thank NAB for turning their backs on the
> public. With their general cowardice towards their own
> industry along with their self serving nature, they helped
> plant the seeds of revolutionary change with internet
> broadcasting,podcasting and sat radio. People want to choose
> from multiple options of programming,not be demoed or
> narrowcasted to. People want legacy stations they heard as a
> kid and want to share those stations with their kids, not
> have syndicated programming and music predetermined by some
> suit in corporate. I quit listening to AM/FM (save for
> weather) when I bought my sirius.
>
NAB is in reality nothing more than a single issue special interest group that, like the industry it "protects abd serves," exists to keep itself in business. The organization's advocacy role has been over shadowed by money. Obviously a group of people makes a good living from running NAB or they wouldn't be where they are doing what they do. They can cloak their claims of promoting the development of terrestrial radio (and television) in whatever language they choose, but the fact remains that the NAB, again just like the industry it represents, is for someone, somewhere a money making proposition. We can well bet that Eddie Fritz and company don't work cheap, not to mention the travel and entertainment perqs of touring the nation schmoozing with broadcast executives in the larger, more entertaining cities. It's much akin to having "the fox guarding the hen house," and in doing so Fritz et al along with the terrestrial radio industry have become complacent with the business of formulated radio, the promoters of which thinking it would be a perpetual monopoly. The turning point has arrived and people are rebelling by dumping AM/FM and going to sat radio. Granted, satellite radio originates from afar and is owned by a major corporation, but at least its a source of good (and commercial free) music with real live and talented people at the controls.

The NAB, Fritz, and all others who've for so long ridden the broadcast money wagon need to realize one of the wheels is squeaking and is about to fall off. The walls of the temple have begun to cruumble.