• 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

Mark Mays says "Free radio is struggling". Seeks expanded ownership.

S

SaltyDog

"Clear Channel Chief Executive Mark Mays, citing competition from satellite-delivered subscription radio, proposed that broadcast radio operators be able to own 10 stations instead of eight in markets where there are at least 60 stations and up to 12 stations in markets where at least 75 radio outlets operate. "

Full text HERE <P ID="signature">______________
"A man is about as big as the things that make him angry" - Winston Churchill

<a href="http://saltydog.5gigs.com">
The Salty Dog</a>
</P>
 
Greedy Clear Channel Wants Even More

> "Clear Channel Chief Executive Mark Mays, citing competition
> from satellite-delivered subscription radio, proposed that
> broadcast radio operators be able to own 10 stations instead
> of eight in markets where there are at least 60 stations and
> up to 12 stations in markets where at least 75 radio outlets
> operate. "

No way.

Maximum ownerahip should be cut back substantially!

No more than 2 AM and 2 FM in the LARGEST markets.

Also see http://www.radio-info.com/mods/board?Board=miami&Post=556037

73s from 954<P ID="signature">______________
<center>South Florida Radio Pages</center></P><P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by 954 on 10/04/05 04:59 PM.</FONT></P>
 
> No way.
>
> Maximum ownerahip should be cut back substantially!
>
> No more than 2 AM and 2 FM in the LARGEST markets.
>
> 73s from 954
>

Agreed. We just went through Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The last thing we need is for Clear Channel to fatten up its wallet even more, and limit program and music diversity even further. Yes, satellite radio, I Pod's, and other technologies shouldn't be ignored, but I find the comments made by Mark Mays to be very alarming as far as broadcast radio is concerned. It's just another case of CC caring more about profit than about what's best for listeners.
 
> "Clear Channel Chief Executive Mark Mays, citing competition
> from satellite-delivered subscription radio, proposed that
> broadcast radio operators be able to own 10 stations instead
> of eight in markets where there are at least 60 stations and
> up to 12 stations in markets where at least 75 radio outlets
> operate. "

reason for struggling? too much emphasis on old music.


>
> Full text HERE
> <P ID="signature">______________
Stuff ignored by the newspapers found at
http://www.sandiegoradionews.com/
</P>
 
Translating Mark Mays

I think what Mark Mays is really saying is:

"We've screwed up radio so much by overpaying for properties, destroying local content, voice tracking, homogenizing music, and oversaturating with advertising that we need an even bigger monopoly to keep our stockholders happy."

My heart bleeds for Clear Channel. I think we should help them out by reducing the number of radio stations that they are allowed to own. After all, that would help them reduce the losses they experience in their radio division, right?
 
Re: Translating Mark Mays

All valid points.

However, Mays doesn't explain how 2 more CC stations in major markets is going to convince me to stop using my Ipod or satellite radio...
 
> "Clear Channel Chief Executive Mark Mays, citing competition
> from satellite-delivered subscription radio, proposed that
> broadcast radio operators be able to own 10 stations instead
> of eight in markets where there are at least 60 stations and
> up to 12 stations in markets where at least 75 radio outlets
> operate. "
>
> Full text HERE
>

Simply put, tying terrestrial broadcasting to satellite broadcasting in this way is an obscenely stupid analogy. I hope no lawmaker falls for this garbage. There should be NO further ownership expansion for any national company period.

If Clear Channel really is "the biggest and the best" radio broadcaster, then they can be good enough to amend their business model(s). Good businesses don't need to lobby for law changes.<P ID="signature">______________
"Not fixing [New Orleans'] levees before Katrina struck will now cost us untold billions. Not resolving the nation's issues of race and class has and will cost us so much more."
--Wynton Marsalis
</P>
 
Re: Translating Mark Mays

> All valid points.
>
> However, Mays doesn't explain how 2 more CC stations in
> major markets is going to convince me to stop using my Ipod
> or satellite radio...
>

One does wonder why, since free radio is struggling, he wants to own MORE stations. Wouldn't he want fewer? Reminds me of when Carly Fiorina decided that the way to cure Hewlett-Packard's money-losing ways in the pc business was to buy ANOTHER pc company - Compaq. Wiseacre analysts called the merger: A collision of two garbage trucks.

What I really thought was remarkable was his statement that "Free radio is struggling". These guys always make such carefully crafted happy, optimistic statements that I found his frankness startling. I wonder if he is happy being quoted on that.<P ID="signature">______________
"A man is about as big as the things that make him angry" - Winston Churchill

<a href="http://saltydog.5gigs.com">
The Salty Dog</a>
</P>
 
Translating Mark Mays...make life easy for 800lb gorilla

All Mark Mays and his rich texas buddies want to do is make life easier for clear channel. They want to do this by asking congress to further loosen the MEDIA OWNERSHIP RULES. For no other reason than so Clear Channel can be 1 step closer to being a MONOPOLY. they want to overthrow all of their markets, and control everything. Congress should break them up...like the Bell companies.
It's because of clear channel that radio has the sounds-the-same-everywhere problem. raising the ownership from 8 stations to 10 will do nothing but lose competition for clear channel as they of course buy up their competitors and foist out-of-market syndicated programming on us listeners. Clear channel is like a virus, their are just like a radio antichrist. I am surprised the Mays family even bothers with congress. I bet Mark Mays and Lowrey are dialing old GW now in Washington and are setting up dinner, so they can talk about the next strategic move in the Grand Scheme of Clear channel's radio phuck over.
I can't stand rich texans....It's bad enough we have 1 in the white house, but we have another cancerous wart on top of Clear channel with the Wavoes to whine about too much competion. I say to Mark Mays about his whining about comettitors...well too damn bad


> > All valid points.


> >
> > However, Mays doesn't explain how 2 more CC stations in
> > major markets is going to convince me to stop using my
> Ipod
> > or satellite radio...
> >
>
> One does wonder why, since free radio is struggling, he
> wants to own MORE stations. Wouldn't he want fewer? Reminds
> me of when Carly Fiorina decided that the way to cure
> Hewlett-Packard's money-losing ways in the pc business was
> to buy ANOTHER pc company - Compaq. Wiseacre analysts called
> the merger: A collision of two garbage trucks.
>
> What I really thought was remarkable was his statement that
> "Free radio is struggling". These guys always make such
> carefully crafted happy, optimistic statements that I found
> his frankness startling. I wonder if he is happy being
> quoted on that.
>
 
How many markets qualify?

Off the top of my head there are not many markets with 60 or more stations, let alone 75 or more. I assume "market" means MSA. "Operate" seems to exclude out-of-MSA stations from his count. Does he include non-commercial stations? Low-power? Translators/boosters?

It looks like he wants to expand his LA cluster, maybe a handful of others. Of course, there is no guarantee that good sticks in major markets will be for sale. But what this move might do is drive up the price for Clear Channel's major market properties. Could Mays be interested in selling rather than buying?


> "Clear Channel Chief Executive Mark Mays, citing competition
> from satellite-delivered subscription radio, proposed that
> broadcast radio operators be able to own 10 stations instead
> of eight in markets where there are at least 60 stations and
> up to 12 stations in markets where at least 75 radio outlets
> operate. "
>
> Full text HERE
>
 
Re: Translating Mark Mays...make life easy for 800lb gorilla

What do you have against Clear Channel? Were you fired? Turned down for a job?
Clear Channel and Rush Limbaugh saved AM radio. Hundreds of small and medium markets can hear a high quality on-air product instead of local schlock. You bleeding hearts whine about local ownership. Local ownership was radio stations operated as a hobby or an ego trip by car dealers or groups of dentists; employing untalented and unqualified people willing to work for minimum wage. Clear Channel has professional managers and professional talent. Listeners and advertisers are better served. They raised the bar for careers in radio. Maybe that's what you are so bitter about.


> All Mark Mays and his rich texas buddies want to do is make
> life easier for clear channel. They want to do this by
> asking congress to further loosen the MEDIA OWNERSHIP RULES.
> For no other reason than so Clear Channel can be 1 step
> closer to being a MONOPOLY. they want to overthrow all of
> their markets, and control everything. Congress should break
> them up...like the Bell companies.
> It's because of clear channel that radio has the
> sounds-the-same-everywhere problem. raising the ownership
> from 8 stations to 10 will do nothing but lose competition
> for clear channel as they of course buy up their competitors
> and foist out-of-market syndicated programming on us
> listeners. Clear channel is like a virus, their are just
> like a radio antichrist. I am surprised the Mays family even
> bothers with congress. I bet Mark Mays and Lowrey are
> dialing old GW now in Washington and are setting up dinner,
> so they can talk about the next strategic move in the Grand
> Scheme of Clear channel's radio phuck over.
> I can't stand rich texans....It's bad enough we have 1 in
> the white house, but we have another cancerous wart on top
> of Clear channel with the Wavoes to whine about too much
> competion. I say to Mark Mays about his whining about
> comettitors...well too damn bad
>
>
> > > All valid points.
>
>
> > >
> > > However, Mays doesn't explain how 2 more CC stations in
> > > major markets is going to convince me to stop using my
> > Ipod
> > > or satellite radio...
> > >
> >
> > One does wonder why, since free radio is struggling, he
> > wants to own MORE stations. Wouldn't he want fewer?
> Reminds
> > me of when Carly Fiorina decided that the way to cure
> > Hewlett-Packard's money-losing ways in the pc business was
>
> > to buy ANOTHER pc company - Compaq. Wiseacre analysts
> called
> > the merger: A collision of two garbage trucks.
> >
> > What I really thought was remarkable was his statement
> that
> > "Free radio is struggling". These guys always make such
> > carefully crafted happy, optimistic statements that I
> found
> > his frankness startling. I wonder if he is happy being
> > quoted on that.
> >
>
 
Re: Translating Mark Mays

> I think what Mark Mays is really saying is:
>
> "We've screwed up radio so much by overpaying for
> properties, destroying local content, voice tracking,
> homogenizing music, and oversaturating with advertising that
> we need an even bigger monopoly to keep our stockholders
> happy."
>
> My heart bleeds for Clear Channel. I think we should help
> them out by reducing the number of radio stations that they
> are allowed to own. After all, that would help them reduce
> the losses they experience in their radio division, right?
>

I agree. If CC is really hurting for cash, then maybe it should give up most or all of its radio stations, and put it in the hands of owners who know the business of radio. Enough said.<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by radionut987 on 10/05/05 12:33 AM.</FONT></P>
 
Re: Translating Mark Mays...make life easy for 800lb gorilla

> What do you have against Clear Channel? Were you fired?
> Turned down for a job?
> Clear Channel and Rush Limbaugh saved AM radio. Hundreds of
> small and medium markets can hear a high quality on-air
> product instead of local schlock. You bleeding hearts whine
> about local ownership. Local ownership was radio stations
> operated as a hobby or an ego trip by car dealers or groups
> of dentists; employing untalented and unqualified people
> willing to work for minimum wage.

Good radio is entertaining. Bad radio can, in its own way, be entertaining. Uniform mediocrity usually isn't. At best, it just beats back a gnawing hunger temporarily like a fast food burger wolfed down on the road.

Yes, there was a lot of bad radio in the sticks, but that didn't make it any less fun to drive through the small towns and hear the distinct accents and sounds and businesses of a country that is anything but homogenized. There were also the occasional gems, the stations that stood out for the right reasons despite a lack of polish. The original WFTL in South Florida, during its phase as a talk station in the early 90's, was such an enterprise. A lot of those unqualified people working at minimum wage got their chops at those small stations and became qualified by doing everything, then moved up to become the professionals blasted coast to coast. They received a better education than those few deluded souls who pay good money for "broadcasting schools" to earn the privilege of crowding into a leaky lifeboat of a profession. You really don't get the "seed corn" analogy, do you?

AM Radio would have been "saved" by somebody, if not Rush, maybe Chuck Harder, or any of a dozen other people who started syndicating right around the mid-80s when satellite time became available. The key to its "salvation" in small markets was the satellite, which brought in talk shows and formats. Large market AM stations did not need "satellite saving", because they already had local talk stations that were at the center of their communities, which were weakened and all but de-localized by the burgeoning of syndication. By the way, no matter how smooth the voice, it isn't high quality radio if the computer overseeing the automated, unattended station breaks down and puts three things on the air at once for hours at a time.

"Raised the bar" for careers in radio? Usually when the bar is raised in a particular profession, salaries are raised as well... Hmmm.... Does that jive with anyone's experience here?
 
Re: Translating Mark Mays...make life easy for 800lb gorilla

> What do you have against Clear Channel?

The thing I have against CC is not only is it too big (with almost 1,200 stations nationwide), but it's also the poster child for everything wrong with radio these days.

> Were you fired?

Fortunately, no. That's because I've never worked at Clear Channel. And never will.

> Turned down for a job?

I've never had the pleasure of applying at a CC-owned cluster, let alone being rejected for a position. See response to the previous question above.

> Clear Channel and Rush Limbaugh saved AM radio. Hundreds of
> small and medium markets can hear a high quality on-air
> product instead of local schlock.

Yeah, right. Most of that "high-quality" on-air product can be heard in say, Louisville, yet that talent is sitting either in New York or Detroit, and probably hasn't visited the area. And if CC and Rush really saved AM radio, then how come it's mainly news/talk, sports, foreign language programming in some communities, and music formats that for the most part, doesn't even get an audience on FM radio, much less satellite radio.

> You bleeding hearts whine about local ownership.

If CC had been meeting its obligation to serve the public interest in communities where it owns radio stations, we wouldn't be complaining or whining about this sorry mess, much less talking about it.

> Local ownership was radio stations
> operated as a hobby or an ego trip by car dealers or groups
> of dentists; employing untalented and unqualified people
> willing to work for minimum wage.

Ha ha ha ha! You've got to be kidding!

> Clear Channel has
> professional managers and professional talent.

If the employees at CC are so professional, how come you have someone like "Bubba The Love Sponge" for inappropriate language uttered over the air? Or, why Howard Stern got booted off six stations owned by CC? Or why media activist groups from Common Cause to the Future of Music Coalition are criticizing CC's tactics at every opportunity?


> Listeners and advertisers are better served.

Listeners and advertised are better served how? By encouraging more people to buy an I Pod or subscribe to satellite radio?

> They raised the bar for careers in radio.

Raised the bar for what? More mediocre programming? The only thing Clear Channel has raised the bar for is having more and more stale playlists.<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by radionut987 on 10/05/05 12:59 AM.</FONT></P>
 
Re: Translating Mark Mays...make life easy for 800lb gorilla

> What do you have against Clear Channel? Were you fired?
> Turned down for a job?
> Clear Channel and Rush Limbaugh saved AM radio. Hundreds of
> small and medium markets can hear a high quality on-air
> product instead of local schlock. You bleeding hearts whine
> about local ownership. Local ownership was radio stations
> operated as a hobby or an ego trip by car dealers or groups
> of dentists; employing untalented and unqualified people
> willing to work for minimum wage. Clear Channel has
> professional managers and professional talent. Listeners
> and advertisers are better served. They raised the bar for
> careers in radio. Maybe that's what you are so bitter
> about.

Would you believe that some of us listeners who have never worked for CC hate the company because of what they have done to local radio, cutting out choices?

Boy, do you have a bug up your...<P ID="signature">______________
<center>South Florida Radio Pages</center></P>
 
Re: Translating Mark Mays...make life easy for 800lb gorilla

> If the employees at CC are so professional, how come you
> have someone like "Bubba The Love Sponge" for inappropriate
> language uttered over the air? Or, why Howard Stern got
> booted off six stations owned by CC? Or why media activist
> groups from Common Cause to the Future of Music Coalition
> are criticizing CC's tactics at every opportunity?

And racist scum like Star & Buck Wild?<P ID="signature">______________
<center>South Florida Radio Pages</center></P>
 
Re: Translating Mark Mays...make life easy for 800lb gorilla

Good points there.

> Good radio is entertaining. Bad radio can, in its own way,
> be entertaining. Uniform mediocrity usually isn't. At best,
> it just beats back a gnawing hunger temporarily like a fast
> food burger wolfed down on the road.
>
> Yes, there was a lot of bad radio in the sticks, but that
> didn't make it any less fun to drive through the small towns
> and hear the distinct accents and sounds and businesses of a
> country that is anything but homogenized. There were also
> the occasional gems, the stations that stood out for the
> right reasons despite a lack of polish. The original WFTL in
> South Florida, during its phase as a talk station in the
> early 90's, was such an enterprise. A lot of those
> unqualified people working at minimum wage got their chops
> at those small stations and became qualified by doing
> everything, then moved up to become the professionals
> blasted coast to coast. They received a better education
> than those few deluded souls who pay good money for
> "broadcasting schools" to earn the privilege of crowding
> into a leaky lifeboat of a profession. You really don't get
> the "seed corn" analogy, do you?
>
> AM Radio would have been "saved" by somebody, if not Rush,
> maybe Chuck Harder, or any of a dozen other people who
> started syndicating right around the mid-80s when satellite
> time became available. The key to its "salvation" in small
> markets was the satellite, which brought in talk shows and
> formats. Large market AM stations did not need "satellite
> saving", because they already had local talk stations that
> were at the center of their communities, which were weakened
> and all but de-localized by the burgeoning of syndication.
> By the way, no matter how smooth the voice, it isn't high
> quality radio if the computer overseeing the automated,
> unattended station breaks down and puts three things on the
> air at once for hours at a time.
>
> "Raised the bar" for careers in radio? Usually when the bar
> is raised in a particular profession, salaries are raised as
> well... Hmmm.... Does that jive with anyone's experience
> here?
>
 
Re: Translating Mark Mays...make life easy for 800lb gorilla

> Clear Channel and Rush Limbaugh saved AM radio.

But I doubt Mr. Mays wants to acquire more AM stations ...<P ID="signature">______________


</P>
 
Re: How many markets qualify?

>But what this move might do is drive up the price for Clear Channel's major market properties. Could Mays be interested in selling rather than buying?

Great point. Now that you mention it he didn't say he wants to buy more stations; I just assumed that. Yes, an increase in the ownership cap would increase the value overnight whether stations in the affected markets were sold or not.<P ID="signature">______________
"A man is about as big as the things that make him angry" - Winston Churchill

<a href="http://saltydog.5gigs.com">
The Salty Dog</a>
</P>
 
How Else Can He Buy ABC Stations?

His proposal only applies in the largest of markets - where he's at his limit and ABC has stations to sell....
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom