More Consolidation is Not the Answer to Poor Business Decisions

[davideduardo]

How would you describe this country? You think we have a free economy?

Yes, we have about the freest economy in the world. There are regulations, a big batch of which were the product of the Great Depression, intended to prevent monopolistic practices and collusion and the like.

Ask Mark Zuckerberg about how free things are for his business.

He is being investigated for monopolistic practices. Nearly every economically advanced nation has similar practices.

You think our media operates with a free economy? Ask CBS, NBC, and ABC how free they feel.

The stations that carry network programming are concerned about investigations of bias. The networks are only concerned to the extent that affiliates cause them to be.

What we're seeing is a national government trying to use its regulatory power to control broadcasting.

The attitude is that almost the totality of journalists are not conservatives, save for a few websites and a cable channel or two. Were I a conservative in politics, that would be a concern of mine, too.

The head of the FCC throws out this open question about deleting lots of regulations. That's the carrot. What we haven't seen yet is the stick. You want deregulation? What are you going to do for me. That's what's next in this process.

The problem there is that the FCC Chairman does not understand broadcasting. Deregulation will not bring back local radio with loads of community content. In fact, all deregulation will do is encourage more stations to turn in their licenses... and issue the chairman does not get at all.

 

[TheBigA]

Yes, we have about the freest economy in the world.

It depends. It's not free if one man can send the stock and bond markets into turmoil. But that's just my opinion.

The stations that carry network programming are concerned about investigations of bias. The networks are only concerned to the extent that affiliates cause them to be.

The letters from the FCC weren't sent to the stations. They were sent to the networks and their CEOs. The networks are being investigated for a number of things, not just bias. However, there's ONE network that is not being investigated. Guess which one.

The attitude is that almost the totality of journalists are not conservatives, save for a few websites and a cable channel or two. Were I a conservative in politics, that would be a concern of mine, too.

There is nothing in the constitution that says speech has to include conservatives. Nothing. All it says is that congress shall make no law. How the speech is done is supposed to be left to the people and the FREE marketplace. There's that word free. Let the people choose. But instead the government wants to impose controls on what kind of speech is allowed. Remember that the constitution says "shall make no law."

Remember: The Fairness Doctrine was repealed. So there are now 1700 conservative talk radio stations. None of them are being investigated for bias.

The problem there is that the FCC Chairman does not understand broadcasting. Deregulation will not bring back local radio with loads of community content. In fact, all deregulation will do is encourage more stations to turn in their licenses... and issue the chairman does not get at all.

The problem is the FCC chairman is a political ideologue who wants to use the power of the federal government to control speech. It's only been four months. You want national radio programming? Imagine if it was run by Kari Lake.

 

[davideduardo]

It depends. It's not free if one man can send the stock and bond markets into turmoil. But that's just my opinion.

Soros did it twice... in his homeland and in England. There are many other cases in national exchanges ranging from Taiwan to Argentina and Brazil, to name a few.

The letters from the FCC weren't sent to the stations. They were sent to the networks and their CEOs. The networks are being investigated for a number of things, not just bias. However, there's ONE network that is not being investigated. Guess which one.

The FCC has no jurisdiction over networks, so the point is moot. The only question is what is being fed to O&O broadcast stations.

There is nothing in the constitution that says speech has to include conservatives. Nothing. All it says is that congress shall make no law. How the speech is done is supposed to be left to the people and the FREE marketplace. There's that word free. Let the people choose. But instead the government wants to impose controls on what kind of speech is allowed. Remember that the constitution says "shall make no law."

However, when a system is not balance on the media side, that is dangerous. In most free nations, the "press" (meaning all news sources) tends to be rather proportionally balanced between parties and movements.

The problem is the FCC chairman is a political ideologue who wants to use the power of the federal government to control speech. It's only been four months. You want national radio programming? Imagine if it was run by Kari Lake.

I agree on the chairman being an idiot.

But my concept of national programming is in accordance with the world model, where private companies operate one or more national stations using several hundred transmitters.

 

[TheBigA]

The FCC has no jurisdiction over networks, so the point is moot.

We both know this. Then why did the FCC Chairman only send letters to the networks? Why did the president say CBS should lose its license? Once again, it's about using the stations as leverage to force the national networks to toe the line. What does that sound like? A free economy? With free speech? Hello Fidel?

However, when a system is not balance on the media side, that is dangerous. In most free nations, the "press" (meaning all news sources) tends to be rather proportionally balanced between parties and movements.

We already had a fairness doctrine. It was repealed 40 years ago. This government isn't aiming for "balance." It wants to shut the other side down completely. They're saying it out loud. They're putting it in writing. Meanwhile, nobody is telling Fox to add some balance. None of the 1700 commercial talk stations are being investigated or told they need to hire more democrats. So balance is not the goal here. It is not the role of the government to create balance. It's the role of the marketplace. Isn't that how Rush won the talk wars? Or did the government help?

But my concept of national programming is in accordance with the world model, where private companies operate one or more national stations using several hundred transmitters.

The ONLY way this government will permit such a thing to happen is if it's run by the government. Just like Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. The difference would be they'd still be privately owned. But run by the government. If you think that's impossible, just look at the letter the government sent Harvard University. They want it to remain a private school, but run by the government.

 

[Delete My Account]

To the issue of "media bias."

How can you legislate it? I recall when the Obama FCC wanted to incentivize "localism." Conservatives (on talk radio and cable TV) howled that that was a backdoor route to mandated liberal programming.

Conservatives also like to brag about their free market victories, including the majority of commercial talk radio, the number one (and at least two other) cable news channels, top ranked podcasts, and their success on the web, streaming and social media.

So to hear conservatives tell it by the "free market" - legacy media that's supposedly filled with liberals, and the specifically liberal outlets, are actually the "alternative" media speaking numerically, and somehow they're surviving for now in the free market. What exactly should the government do about this "problem?" The market's already dealt with it, and Trump won two elections. The GOP holds the majority in all branches. Seems like a pretty ineffective "dangerous" liberal media.

If danger is involved, it seems that the fringe public might be more dangerous to the media than the media to the public, given what I've seen texted into local radio stations and their newsrooms from MAGA and Q followers. The ratio was one or two fringe lefties wishing natural causes of a dire nature on Trump to 5 who'd yell about how our anchors should be brought before tribunals and firing squads for "promoting the clot shot" and other such nonsense. Along with a dash of racial slurs for good measure if the host, anchor or reporter was a person of color.

I've worked with a lot of reporters and journalists and I can think of no shortage of them that had conservative points of view. Now, it's also true that many of the anchors and reporters I knew consciously did not register with a party or abstained from political activity to avoid bias, or accusations thereof. But there are, or at least were, plenty of conservatives in media.

If conservatives and liberals have "self-sorted" given the lucrative nature of various forms of increasingly extreme right-wing media outlets, again, that's a free market issue. It may be unfortunate that we've become so polarized, but they're free to go where they want, and if more liberals feel at home in the more traditional venues, then that's a function of the market and culture. For the federal government to attempt to solve this "problem" seems oddly close to three letters conservatives claim to be against...DEI.

 

[boombox4]

Someone please explain how over the air radio is sending people online for basically being a computer in a closet , yet the online stations are computers in closets. Explain how a jukebox sends potential listeners away from radio to the same product (a jukebox) online.

#1. The listener can custom program their 'jukebox'. #2, they can 'tune' to 100's of different, niche formats on that one internet 'jukebox'. I can go to Pandora and hear nothing but early 2010's pop hits. I can also access a 2000's Nu-metal channel online. Hard to find that over-the-air, computer in a closet or no computer in a closet.

I think one of the issues here is cost, also. Radio is free. Streaming isn't free, but in some cases, if you want to hear commercials, it's free.

In the past, if you wanted to customize your own playlist, you had to buy the records, cassettes, or CDs. In the 1990's-2000's- early2010's maybe you bought or pirated MP3's (in the case of Napster and some other later pirating services like Limewire).

Now you just open a streaming app on your smartphone, and you have access to thousands of music files, for free or next to free. I can listen to whatever I want on YouTube, and sure, there are commercials, but I have access to more music on YT than I have with my (extensive) CD collection.

So Radio is up against all that -- mainly the convenience of streaming, as well as its low cost. Hard to compete with that.

 

[boombox4]

On air radio: 12 to 14 minutes of ads in long stopsets.
Streaming audio: no ads or limited ads, depending on service.

On YouTube you get an ad nearly every video / song, with longer music clips (whole album sides) you get a spot every 5 minutes or 9 minutes or so.

So there are a lot of ads. And YT is the most popular streaming service in the US.

I think the fact that you can get it for free, and that it's individually curated (by the end user) and also the selection is practically unlimited are the key reasons that streaming is so popular. I still listen to radio, but YT has replaced my home CD collection (being that my CD player went belly up).

 

[boombox4]

As I mentioned before, the biggest issue of OTA radio is at the sales level. It is hard and complicated and tedious to buy. Oh, and inconsistent market to market.

There is less and less local direct money because of big-box stores and internet sales thinning the herd significantly. And national agency accounts find radio very hard and complicated to buy.

It's interesting that in nations where there are many "national stations" radio has nearly twice the percentage of ad revenue as in the U.S.

And what, in the U.S. is called "network" is never a compete national coverage with 24/7 consistent demographic targeting across the country. At best, "network" sell a few decent stations along with a plethora of rimshots, far suburban and otherwise useless stations which don't deliver the entire nation uniformly.

I'm surprised that there hasn't been more nationalization of formats and 'stations'. In Europe one of the most popular pop radio stations in many countries is NRJ ('Energy'), a French originated CHR brand that has stations in many countries, and in those countries there are either FM or DAB outlets available nationwide (France, Norway, Sweden, Germany, Switzerland, Finland being examples). Being that a lot of US format radio is homogenized, with a minimal amount of localization, one would think a similar idea could work here, especially in the biggest and most popular formats.

 

[Miss Tuned]

I'm surprised that there hasn't been more nationalization of formats and 'stations'. In Europe one of the most popular pop radio stations in many countries is NRJ ('Energy'), a French originated CHR brand that has stations in many countries, and in those countries there are either FM or DAB outlets available nationwide (France, Norway, Sweden, Germany, Switzerland, Finland being examples). Being that a lot of US format radio is homogenized, with a minimal amount of localization, one would think a similar idea could work here, especially in the biggest and most popular formats.

I was in Norway recently - all their radio, with a very limited number of exceptions, is digital (DAB+). The vast majority of the commercial radio is nationally broadcast - not national network broadcasts with a bit of local news and local commercials, but fully national, the same program from Oslo to Tromsø. (Technically, DAB works on a single-frequency network that supports only the broadcast of the exact same synchronized feed across the network.)

The UK isn't quite there yet - a lot of the commercial radio networks (Heart, Smooth, Greatest Hits Radio et al) are made up of former local FM stations, so they still have some remnants of local broadcasting, mostly local news/traffic and ads, but all the actual programming is national.

In a lot of UK areas that have lost their local station into the network, new start-up independent DAB stations have appeared with much lower cost bases and local programming. Most have been on the air with live-and-local programming for a few years now, I'm listening to one now that's about to hit the five year mark, so it seems that there's space in the commercial market for both approaches.

 

[boombox4]

I was in Norway recently - all their radio, with a very limited number of exceptions, is digital (DAB+). The vast majority of the commercial radio is nationally broadcast - not national network broadcasts with a bit of local news and local commercials, but fully national, the same program from Oslo to Tromsø. (Technically, DAB works on a single-frequency network that supports only the broadcast of the exact same synchronized feed across the network.)

The UK isn't quite there yet - a lot of the commercial radio networks (Heart, Smooth, Greatest Hits Radio et al) are made up of former local FM stations, so they still have some remnants of local broadcasting, mostly local news/traffic and ads, but all the actual programming is national.

In a lot of UK areas that have lost their local station into the network, new start-up independent DAB stations have appeared with much lower cost bases and local programming. Most have been on the air with live-and-local programming for a few years now, I'm listening to one now that's about to hit the five year mark, so it seems that there's space in the commercial market for both approaches.

I'm aware that NRJ operates in Norway, as I have a couple online friends over there who used to listen to it and P3 (I don't know what station they listen to now, haven't been in touch with them lately). There's also a P3-alt variant (can't remember the actual moniker) that an acquaintance listened to.

But that's how I learned about NRJ, and then did some research. I think each country's version of NRJ may be nationally programmed, but they're national stations in the countries they serve. Can't see why that wouldn't work in the US. We have a lot of syndicated programming on radio here anyway. A lot of popular online podcasts are national in bent. TV -- as BigA pointed out -- is mostly national.

There are some nationally networked stations, like BIN. Not sure how successful it is, but it's continued for 4 and a half years so far.

Maybe that's the direction radio needs to take. They may be already taking that step with their online platforms. IHeart seems to be going in that direction. But OTA is obviously a different story. Maybe the present business model is still working well enough to not take that step.

 

[b-turner]

Boombox, you are missing my point: People tell me frequently that radio chases the listener off to online listening because we don't have live and local 24/7 and such, complaining we are a computer jukebox in a closet. The typical online only station is not live and local 24/7 and simply a computer jukebox in a closet. My question is what makes listening to a jukebox radio station over the airwaves drive away people from radio to listen to the same thing online.

 

[ted chittenden]

There are some nationally networked stations, like BIN. Not sure how successful it is, but it's continued for 4 and a half years so far.

BIN is hardly national. While you can hear it anywhere online, it has over-the-air outlets in only a handfull of cities with large African-american populations, mostly on the east coast. And I can name one city with a very large black population that doesn't have a BIN outlet--Los Angeles, California. The network can be heard on the HD2 subchannel of KOST-FM (at least the last time I checked) as well as online but not over the air. I thought that the 1110 frequency in Pasadena would have been a great opportunity for BIN in the Los Angeles area but all of the stations carrying the programming are either owned or controlled by IHeart Media and that company had already reached its Los Angeles maximum with stations carrying other programming options.

The only truly national (or close to) networks in the U.S. are noncommercial. Most are religious (K-Love and American Family Radio immediately come to mind) where the companies involved own all (or nearly all) of the stations that carry their programming. NPR would also qualify, though it uses a different business model that is more reminiscent of the TV networks; namely, it doesn't own any of the stations that carry its programming and stations can opt in and out of carrying individual offerings from the network. Still, NPR's two most popular programs, "Morning Edition," and "All Things Considered," can be considered nationally distributed shows as all major markets (excepting the Rio Grande Valley of South Texas) and a whole lot of smaller markets currently have radio stations that carry both shows.

 

[ted chittenden]

Boombox, you are missing my point: People tell me frequently that radio chases the listener off to online listening because we don't have live and local 24/7 and such, complaining we are a computer jukebox in a closet. The typical online only station is not live and local 24/7 and simply a computer jukebox in a closet. My question is what makes listening to a jukebox radio station over the airwaves drive away people from radio to listen to the same thing online.

I can think of a few answers to your question:

1) Online radio doesn't stop with distance. If you're listening to a radio station while driving, you will lose it at some point. While this may be true for online listening as well, that point is much further away than radio stations can go. Also, you will not the fuzziness or static that you hear as you move further and further away from the radio transmission source, again something you don't have with online streaming.

2) You have a lot more offerings to choose from online than with radio. Those offerings aren't unlimited but there are a lot more of them than you can get by checking your local radio frequencies.

3) David Eduardo is right! In many cases, online streams are customizable for the individual listener. That is something that actual radio can never do.

 

[TheBigA]

1) Online radio doesn't stop with distance.

Sure it does. You can only receive it where there is cell service. There are big parts of this country with no cell phone service.

2) You have a lot more offerings to choose from online than with radio. Those offerings aren't unlimited but there are a lot more of them than you can get by checking your local radio frequencies.

Only because the broadcast system isn't owned by one company, so you have multiple frequencies playing the same music. If there was just one company, as there is with Sirius, you'd have no format duplication, and that would open those frequencies for other formats.

 

[ted chittenden]

Only because the broadcast system isn't owned by one company, so you have multiple frequencies playing the same music. If there was just one company, as there is with Sirius, you'd have no format duplication, and that would open those frequencies for other formats.

Not true. In a large city, such as Los Angeles, pretty much all of the available radio frequencies are taken and I count (roughly) 75 different radio stations in that market. Even if one company could own all of those 75 signals, that is absolutely no match for the thousands of stations online that are available to hear in the Los Angeles area. And, because there aren't thousands of different formats, and because, in some cases, I can customize what I want to hear from those streams, I still come out better with the online jukebox than with the over-the-air jukebox.

 

[TheBigA]

I can customize what I want to hear from those streams, I still come out better with the online jukebox than with the over-the-air jukebox.

Personal customization isn't an online jukebox. It's playing your personal playlist, not unlike playing your own CDs or mixtapes. That option has been available for 50 years. It's why car companies included CD, cassette, or 8 track players in cars.

I'm talking about linear curated radio. That kind of thing is based on genre.

 

[radiofan2023]

In a lot of UK areas that have lost their local station into the network, new start-up independent DAB stations have appeared with much lower cost bases and local programming. Most have been on the air with live-and-local programming for a few years now, I'm listening to one now that's about to hit the five year mark, so it seems that there's space in the commercial market for both approaches.

Do those independent DAB stations show up in the RAJAR ratings, or not?

 

[b-turner]

Nobody seems to get this: Complaint: Radio is so bad today without local programming, local air talent and just playing music, it is driving people to online listening versus radio. My Question: If you are complaining radio is just playing music and that's pretty much it. Because radio is doing that, it sends people to online stations. Please name the online stations that are local with local talent that you are listening to online. Then the complainer says they listen online because it is just music. My point is if on air radio offers just music, why is it people abandon radio for the same thing online? Aren't online stations driving people away from streaming radio for doing the same thing complainers say is what is driving people away from on air radio?

This has nothing to do with distance or music options or even commercials but that because radio is not local and do something along with music it is dying. Those listeners are getting that local and information online, as they imply, but they admit it is just music. So my point is if on air radio mimics online radio with constant music why is on air bad and online good?

 

[Cold Coffee]

Maybe there is nothing on local radio you want to hear. You prefer the music on an online station more.
There are many music choices online. Just ask Alexa.

 

[davideduardo]

I'm surprised that there hasn't been more nationalization of formats and 'stations'. In Europe one of the most popular pop radio stations in many countries is NRJ ('Energy'), a French originated CHR brand that has stations in many countries, and in those countries there are either FM or DAB outlets available nationwide (France, Norway, Sweden, Germany, Switzerland, Finland being examples). Being that a lot of US format radio is homogenized, with a minimal amount of localization, one would think a similar idea could work here, especially in the biggest and most popular formats.

Nearly all the nations in Europe have commercial national stations. France has Nostalgie, NRJ, Chérie, RTL and quite a few more. Spain has quite a few, starting with Los 40 which also has clones in Chile, Argentina, Ecuador, Costa Rica and elsewhere. Cadena 100, COPE, Onda Cero, Cadena SER and others. Same in Germany, Italy and most of the rest.