My Take On What's Wrong With Radio

[davideduardo]

if anything, he is a master statisical(sic) manipulator in the same way that every radio station can be number 1 in something.

The fact is that I have facts that can be verified. You left the last little discussion on the absurdity of programming from LA to a peripheral, much smaller market without producing one fact beyond a projection of an 8-year-old Census.

David is the epitome of corporate greed that has led to this problem in the first plasce.

Excuse me, but unprofitable stations can not serve anyone. The go into bankruptcy or get sold or go silent. Without a return on money invested, nobody intelligent would want to own a radio station, so we would have a herd of Lorenzo Milam wannabees in charge of radio. Kawabunga, Uncle Bob, that sucks big time!

1996! are you kidding me? Of course there were losses a decade ago, that is when these monsterous(sic) buyouts were taking place! That is a terrible comp.

Consolidation, or the ability to own more than 25 or 30 stations, was approved because so many stations were unprofitable, and lenders pretty uniformly would not finance acquisitions or working capital because of the concentrated exposure. You realize there was a study done to show this, based on actual tax return data for a random sample of stations?

Look at the 80's, before this mess started. Stations made money, talent had big shares, no voice tracking. Solid companies doing good business. (still big business, still plenty of greed to go around, not claiming perfection).

The 80's was the breaking point that brought on consolidation. Let's look at your claims.

1. Stations made money. The FCC annual Financial Reports, eliminated later in the decade showed the 80's starting in a real crisis. FM had become viable, to the extent that by 1980 the national FM share was approaching 60%. That meant that markets where only 6 to 8 AMs competed now had 12 to 18 FMs in the fray, or 3 times the stations going after pretty much the same amount of ad revenue.

2. Talent had big shares. No, they had declining shares as more viable stations split the shares. For example, Cleveland in the 60's had 8 stations, all AM, that got ratings. By 1980, there were 26 to 28 stations showing numbers. The shares for leading stations and talents were, appropriately, abut a third of the typical 60's levels. It's called fragmentation. You can track it in Duncan's compendium of ratings from 1975 to 2002.

3. No voice tracking. give me a break. The 60's and early 80's had more stations automated as a percentage of total stations than today. TM Century, Peters Productions, Shulke, Bonneville, Churchill, Drake-Chenault, RPM, IGM, FM100 Plan, Música en Flor, KalaMusic and a number of others provided mostly automated program services with voice tracking to several thousand stations... and as the 80's advanced, the satellite providers replaced the taped automated services.

4. .... doing good business. Bull. Stations had a hard time reacting to markets that suddenly had three times the stations in viable competition due to FMs finally becoming contenders. Add to that the bad economy that allowed Reagan to be elected and the revolution being caused by cable with original content, VHS and even the CD. Those were not good years for most radio stations.

Look at companies like Univision, Clear Channel, CBS, etc...hire tons of people only to fire them later...It is not right. And David Gleason, no matter how many long winded post you write, you can't make it right.

I don't speak for Clear Channel or CBS but Univision is very talent driven. Voice tracking does not get audience (the LA cluster, for example, does not even have equipment configured to do voice tracking) and we believe in personalities, as listening to our stations will show.

You can criticize certain companies and stations, but to indict the entire industry based on the actions of some is unfair and shows you to be a poor student of what goes on today; you already showed that you are without a doubt unaware of the history of radio... in this post, you did not get a single fact straight.

 

[purdyum]

;DIt is important to keep perspective. Calguy, you brought up a good topic, one that rational people in the biz can discuss and articulate their opinions. I must ask one favor of you, don't capitulate to David Gleason and give him any credit for being a master statistician, if anything, he is a master statisical manipulator in the same way that every radio station can be number 1 in something.

David is the epitome of corporate greed that has led to this problem in the first plasce. It isn't that David has a say in the greed of his company or industry, he won't say anything until it is he who is on the unemployment line. 1996! are you kidding me? Of course there were losses a decade ago, that is when these monsterous buyouts were taking place! That is a terrible comp. Look at the 80's, before this mess started. Stations made money, talent had big shares, no voice tracking. Solid companies doing good business. (still big business, still plenty of greed to go around, not claiming perfection).

Look at companies like Univision, Clear Channel, CBS, etc...hire tons of people only to fire them later...It is not right. And David Gleason, no matter how many long winded post you write, you can't make it right. ;D

 

[radio_gal1]

I'm not so much into this topic because there is a lot of information to be known behind it, and I am not well informed...
BUT I sure do have one opinion on it--- DavidEduardo: instead of putting so much time on this message board, why don't you become a lawyer? Just a thought... :

 

[davideduardo]

;DIt is important to keep perspective. Calguy, you brought up a good topic, one that rational people in the biz can discuss and articulate their opinions. I must ask one favor of you, don't capitulate to David Gleason and give him any credit for being a master statistician, if anything, he is a master statisical manipulator in the same way that every radio station can be number 1 in something.

David is the epitome of corporate greed that has led to this problem in the first plasce. It isn't that David has a say in the greed of his company or industry, he won't say anything until it is he who is on the unemployment line. 1996! are you kidding me? Of course there were losses a decade ago, that is when these monsterous buyouts were taking place! That is a terrible comp. Look at the 80's, before this mess started. Stations made money, talent had big shares, no voice tracking. Solid companies doing good business. (still big business, still plenty of greed to go around, not claiming perfection).

Look at companies like Univision, Clear Channel, CBS, etc...hire tons of people only to fire them later...It is not right. And David Gleason, no matter how many long winded post you write, you can't make it right. ;D

Translation: I have no facts to refute your history-based facts, so I will just end this with a cheap shot. At least you did not repost the same response three times as you did on the absurd Inland Empire thread.

 

[purdyum]

No David, once again...you miss the point. So here is the challenge to David Gleason Internet manager at Univision. Put it up in short sentences with a link to the information. You got back up? Prove it. [EDIT]


[EDIT-inflammatory]

 

[davideduardo]

No David, once again...you miss the point. So here is the challenge to David Gleason Internet manager at Univision. Put it up in short sentences with a link to the information. You got back up? Prove it. [EDIT

1. I do not have much to do with the internet. Your assumption is 100% wrong.

2. I have no idea what "information" you want a link for. I suspect you mean the FCC financials, billings data and automation counts.

The financial report summaries were all published in Broadcasting Magazine, market by market, for every year they were required; I have almost every issue from 1950 to 1975, and significant numbers from 1938 to 1949 and 1975 to the mid 80's. The publication is copyright, so if you wish to disprove me, you will have to go to a library that has the issues.

Similarly, you can buy a copy of Duncan's Vol 1 of the Arbitron Trilogy for $185. It is copyright, too. You will find that most research material can not be linked as it is copyright and if the publisher has not decided to digitize it and offer it for a fee, or free, you can not get it without going to a library. Pre-2000 material on radio is scant, because the market is so small.

You can see how many stations were using taped automated formats or satellite formats by looking at the individual Duncan reports, which started in 1975. You can also look at the ads in Broadcasting, many of which had station counts.

Both the Trilogy Vol. 1 and the quarterly American Radio reports showed market revenue and billings for the principal stations in every rated market, so you can see how billings were fragmented in a slow process from the 70's into the 80's, with the money getting split between more and more stations. Those publications also showed the ratings trending for 28 years in the case of the Trilogy volume or for 5 books in the case of the American Radio reports.

 

[purdyum]

David, YOU said you have stats to back up your position that Clear Channel, CBS, Univision etc. have been good for radio, prove it with the information you claim to have. All I see are mass firings, voice tracking, generic formats. All the while, upper level managers get huge sums when they are fired and hundreds of good broadcasters have been fired because of "cost cutting". Clear Channel is the worst, they seem to enjoy doing it around the holidays. tsk tsk. David, show me how this is good in any way shape or form.

 

[XRQKFM]

Clear Channel & CBS have been good for radio; satellite radio that is, and I-pods, Thanks to Clear Channel; the Wal-Mart of radio (Mays words) and others, millions are willing to shell out over $13 a month for what at one time was a free medium! They have also been good for us independent broadband broadcasters, thanks to the sludge Clear Channel & CBS call programming, folks are now willing to spend a chunk of cash on a broadband connection and a computer to listen to streaming radio stations programmed by real radio people, with a passion for broadcasting, and not by some glorified bean counters.
Remember what goes around comes around; the mega broadcasters have all but destroyed the medium of radio, as we knew it. We Ma & Pa broadcasters have not gone away, we are still around; we have just moved up the dial in the way of the Internet. I have people listening to us all over the world, many while on the road. With wireless Internet spreading all over the globe, I don’t need the FCC or the NAB telling me what to do, and thanks to the greed of the record industry, we Indy broadcasters and artists don’t need them either. With today’s technology I can go just about anywhere and do a live broadcast, and make money while doing it! You just have to be innovative and go for it, from selling our own stable of artist on CD’s to T-shirts & bumper stickers etc, we manage to make a nice living while doing what we love to do! Radio is no longer is just AM & FM, it’s broadband, podcasting, satellite, DBS, part 15 AM & FM, 2.5ghz wireless.
David is right about one thing; the market share of greedy broadcasters is shrinking, and Indy broadcasters like myself are helping to shrink it and the bottom line for them, and laughing all the way to the bank!

Steve
www.KNJOradio.com
www.radiobrandy.net

 

[davideduardo]

David, YOU said you have stats to back up your position that Clear Channel, CBS, Univision etc. have been good for radio, prove it with the information you claim to have.

First, I did not say that specific companies were "good for radio." I said consolidation was necessary for radio because radio was in very dire straits in the late 80's into the 90's, and consolidation as a concept was a viable alternative. Not all consoidators have benfited their communities, listeners and shareholders. Others have.

All I see are mass firings, voice tracking, generic formats.

I don't see any more of that than I saw in the 60's or 70's or 80's....

In the 70's and 80's there were a much higher percentage of operating stations that were voice tracked... we did not call it that, but it was the same thing. Firings at failing stations were very common, but since no company had more than 14 stations through the 80's, firings did not consist of huge numbers of persons company-wide as the tcompanies were very small.

As to "generic formats" there was nothing more generic than Top 40 from the late 50's through the 60's. Very similar mechanics, nearly the same songs, etc., etc. Then came the thosand or so Beautiful Music stations... all playing mostly the same covers of pop songs, with the differentiation being how much the syndicator spent on coustom music. Every decade has a group of formats that are widely replicated all across the US. Today, the only difference is that due to the Internet, names are also replicated because it is so hard to register a decent mark any more so we use the ones we have over and over.

All the while, upper level managers get huge sums when they are fired and hundreds of good broadcasters have been fired because of "cost cutting".

Maytag fired everyone and moved appliance manufacturing from Newton, IA to Mexico. Hershey closed down a lot of the Hershey, PA, facilities and is now in Monterrey, the one with two "r" in it... As productivity and technology decrease the headcount need, all industries are reducing staff. Toyota is about to surpass GM as the auto leader because it takes less man-hours to build a Camry than an Impala.

You are blaming radio management for what is really a business reality anyplace. And radio management is not particularly well paid compared to other industries. But, like those who are critical and valuable enough to any company, they have contrascts that specify terms for any break-up of the parties. That is a normal business practice, and highly qualified individuals in all fields get such benefits.

Clear Channel is the worst, they seem to enjoy doing it around the holidays. tsk tsk. David, show me how this is good in any way shape or form.

I don't work for Clear, and never have. So I can not give an opinion on the internal operations. But to condemn the operators of the other 13,400 stations in the US for what Clear does at the 5% of stations they own is also unfair.

 

[purdyum]

Steve, good on you, mate. That is the way I hope this goes in the future. People like David Gleason, John Hogan, The Mays...all of them, the eyes are off the ball, they are in full panic mode, as well they should be. The problem is, the indie's represent a very small share in major markets.

Someone like David Gleason can point to statistics of overall ownership which is not a representative number. What would be great to see is the indies work together and pool resources and talent to bring the industry back.

tough putt.

 

[barman]

purdyum, I had no idea that this David Gleason character was one of those [EDIT]
until you pointed it out. Thanks for letting us know.


[EDIT-namecalling]

 

[davideduardo]

People like David Gleason, John Hogan, The Mays...all of them, the eyes are off the ball, they are in full panic mode, as well they should be.

Be careful who you lump together.

Fair use extract from an article from last week... I don't see any people in panic mode.

Study: Record Growth Ahead For Hispanic Media

MONTEREY, CA -- February 6, 2008: A new study from SNL Kagan, "Economics of Hispanic TV & Radio in the U.S.," predicts that Hispanic radio's revenue growth will considerably outpace the industry in 2008, rising by 6 percent, to $1.21 billion, compared to expected growth of 2 percent-3 percent for radio overall. Over the next four years, SNL Kagan expects Hispanic radio-station revenues to grow at about 4.9 percent annually.

"The recognition of a growing audience with increasing buying power has highlighted the importance of targeting the Hispanic population," said Deana Myers, Senior Analyst for SNL Kagan. "Spanish-language broadcast networks have been rapidly growing over the past several years, attracting new advertisers, while English-speaking broadcast networks have struggled during the same time period to generate minor growth in advertising dollars."

Someone like David Gleason can point to statistics of overall ownership which is not a representative number. What would be great to see is the indies work together and pool resources and talent to bring the industry back.

As you yoursef said, the smaller operators are mostly in smaller markets outside the top 50 markets. In those situations, market forces determine what can be paid, as the margins are tighter. Remember, over 25% of the 12+ population is in the top 10 markets, and half of it is in the top 50 markets. There is a strong revenue correlation there too.

 

[XRQKFM]

What would be great to see is the indies work together and pool resources and talent to bring the industry back.

We are already taking steps to share resources with other Indy broadcasters, as much as we would like to leap; we are taking baby steps, so our growth is more stable for everyone. One step is to share space on our website with other Indy broadcasters, we are also taking steps to set up our own print shop, to produce everything from bumper stickers to T-shirts. CD & DVD duplication will also be done in house. We will also share engineering & IT department with our stations; Radio Brandy is involved in growing the talent pool, through a new low cost broadcast workshop. To make this successful; we all have to pool our resources and talent.
What is right with radio? We little guys are going to have the last word on the future of broadcasting; not Cheap Channel.


Steve
www.radiobrandy.com

 

[Stewy]

Another possibly good thread choked off with deflection and statistical boorishism by David. I do understand now why you would (and maybe do) do well in the boardroom. All the same reason why the radio industry is in the bottom of the bowl right now. Yeah, I see it well; the investors' hand is on the lever ready to flush and he doesn't even slow down the dictation. Keep on keepin' on David, someone will always be willing to listen.

But hey, fun to read and get my blood going. I'll see you in the septic tank.

 

[davideduardo]

Another possibly good thread choked off with deflection and statistical boorishism by David.

Truth hurts?

The "radio is dead" stuff is just getting a bit much. 95% of the population uses radio weekly, and, while competing choices for entertainment and leisure time have reduced the amount of time spent with radio, it is off by less than a percent a year since the late 80's. Compared to network TV, newspapers and other "old media" radio is quite resilient and alive. Revenue growth has been negative only two years since the RAB started keeping track around 1960 (see their website).

 

[KFodor]

I'm sorry, but I agree with David here.

I'm pretty tired of the "radio is dead" crap on these and other boards, too.

Lots of businesses would kill to get 95% penetration.

You mention satellite radio. If it's so popular, how come both companies have to merge? Why is it the (supposedly) sought after "1960's channel" has the total tune in audience of the top radio station in Traverse City, Michigan? The third most listened to channel is the one that plays the same songs over and over and over...so much for a need for "deep cuts" and "variety" and "6,000 song playlists".

Sure, there's lots of new competition. And radio is paying attention...though most of you are too busy trying to bring back that live overnight Sunday shift as proof of "localism". But, true change is glacial in nature. I've both supported and been critical of companies like Clear Channel. But I like to remind people...there's over 10,000 radio stations on the air who are not owned by CC.

It's funny, too. David provides you with sourced statistics to prove his points (which you could look up if you were willing to take the time). Most of the others here just spew back their own biased "opinions" with little, if any fact or source as proof.

The fact is: a good portion of the people who comment on these boards are people who:

* have never worked in radio.
* are teenagers who want to work in radio.
* are part-time board-ops who think they should be GM's.
* are disgruntled former employees of certain broadcast companies.
* may be satellite radio paid "press agents".
* are former pros who, for whatever reason, were turned out of their jobs, but remain bitter.
* or, are people with too much time on their hands who simply want to gripe.

I know a lot of you will disagree. David...(and you said this of me before), you're being way too patient with some of these folks. But, I respect you for standing by your positions.

 

[XRQKFM]

“You mention satellite radio. If it's so popular, how come both companies have to merge?”
It’s ill relevant to the fact; 10 million plus subscribers are not listening to free over the air terrestrial radio if they don’t have to. Mismanagement might also have something to do with it, or the other answer in part can be found in Broadcast Bullies and Crushing The Little Guys.
http://www.radiobrandy.com/BroadcastBullies1.html

"Why is it the (supposedly) sought after "1960's channel" has the total tune in audience of the top radio station in Traverse City, Michigan?"
Regardless; they are listers not listening to tradional radio.

Lets face it; the NAB has thrown every possible obstacle they could think of at satellite radio, even forcing them to recall millions of radios because you might be able to hear them down the street on a good car radio. The set backs might have something to do with it!

“The fact is: a good portion of the people who comment on these boards are people who:”
* have never worked in radio.
Since 1968
* are teenagers who want to work in radio.
What’s wrong with teenagers enthusiastic about working in radio?
* are part-time board-ops who think they should be GM's.
Perhaps the board op can see things from outside the fishbowl. They couldn’t make radio any worse
* are disgruntled former employees of certain broadcast companies.
Thank God I have never had the displeasure of working for one of those certain companies.
* may be satellite radio paid "press agents".
Could also be one of the 10 million + subscribers who are fed up with traditional broadcasters and willing to shell out $13 plus dollars a month has an opinion too.
* are former pros who, for whatever reason, were turned out of their jobs, but remain bitter.
Could also be pros who got fed up with working around a bunch of bean counting, back stabbing, bigoted, tattletale management types, who don’t like the direction radio is being taken by the above mentioned management types.
* Or, are people with too much time on their hands who simply want to gripe.
I agree with you, with over 11934 posts, I think David has way too much time on his hands when he is not backstabbing or snitching on some little guy with a 25-milliwatt Ramsey transmitter.
NOTE: My opinions of David come from his own post, in his own words; I don’t allow his colleagues I know influence me too much.

I know a lot of you will disagree. David...(and you said this of me before), you're being way too patient with some of these folks. But, I respect you for standing by your positions.

You should respect everyone’s opinions here even if you disagree, instead of attempting to belittle them. Where on these boards does it say it’s only for management types, or those working in radio? It’s open to everyone interested in radio; in fact I value the opinions of the listeners and future broadcasters more than the management types who think they know it all. I don’t like to make personal attacks, it is good for the readers to hear David’s point of view, as it does represent management’s angle on this matter. It really does help to explain why radio is in the mess it is in. Nobody has explained the corporate mindset better than David has.
One student of Radio Brandy had it in her mind she was going to work for Univision, it was her life’s dream since she was 9, after reading David’s post for the last couple of months she has decided to go in another direction. A big loss for Univision as the girl is very talented; you might say she was ready for primetime.

Like the old sane goes “Those who live by the numbers die the numbers” I think Clear Channel is proving that to be the case as it implodes.

Steve
www.XRQK.com

 

[davideduardo]

“You mention satellite radio. If it's so popular, how come both companies have to merge?”
It’s ill relevant to the fact; 10 million plus subscribers are not listening to free over the air terrestrial radio if they don’t have to.

"Ill relevant" means what? If you meant "irrelevant" you are off base. It is relevant. There are around 16 million subscribers, but the vast majority of installs are in cars where only about a third of listening takes place. So most of those subscribers listen to terrestrial radio in their homes and at work.

As a former programmer of 5 of th XM channels, I learned that a large percentage of subscribers are people in smaller markets where certain formats can not survive on terrestrial radio, such as the extreme example of reggae in Minneapolis. Further, many suscribers are truckers and travelers who don't want to tune to different stations every hundred miles, or partisans of formats like standards, oldies, etc., that are not viable in most places due to advertiser rejection of certain demos.

So satellite fills in for the 5% to 6% of people who never, even 20 years ago, listened to radio or the 6% to 8% in any market that did not like terrestrial radio and listened very, very little. here is room for both satellite and terrestrial; in may ways they are complimetary.

Back to my point... with installs mostly in cars, the 16 million subscribers only use about 5 million "people's worth" of radio and have a very small share of listening...

"Why is it the (supposedly) sought after "1960's channel" has the total tune in audience of the top radio station in Traverse City, Michigan?"
Regardless; they are listers not listening to tradional radio.

So? It's a very small number. I've been to Traverse City, and there are nearly 30 stations in the market of just over 100 thousand, so any one station has very small AQH listening levels.

Lets face it; the NAB has thrown every possible obstacle they could think of at satellite radio, even forcing them to recall millions of radios because you might be able to hear them down the street on a good car radio. The set backs might have something to do with it!

Satellite was chartered to be national and not do local service. They signed the deal, so don't whine when we ask they to agree to fulfil their promises. Further, those radios did not "interfere down the street" but, in fact, when driven around, interfered with reception in all the cars for 50 or 60 feet around on the street and on highways. That is illegal, although a pirate proponent may not agree.

I agree with you, with over 11934 posts, I think David has way too much time on his hands when he is not backstabbing or snitching on some little guy with a 25-milliwatt Ramsey transmitter.

One word: illegal. Who does an illegal act? A criminal.

Nobody has explained the corporate mindset better than David has.

The distinction here is that I believe that broadcasters shall follow the laws and regulations and the standards of the community.

One student of Radio Brandy had it in her mind she was going to work for Univision, it was her life’s dream since she was 9, after reading David’s post for the last couple of months she has decided to go in another direction. A big loss for Univision as the girl is very talented; you might say she was ready for primetime.

That's a lie. Univision has only been in radio for a couple of years. Unless the girl is 13 and thinks she can get a job at that age in violation of most labor laws, you are making this up.

 

[ajhenderson]

Very good points, Jason. You're missing, two, though:
* people who think they are talents who can't get midnight-5 gigs and think radio will die because of it
* k

I'll agree with XRQK that some GMs may be too engrained and not open to new ideas, but I think there are many more of those (that may or may not also be owners) at independently owned stations. You know, the stations doing the same failed thing year after year, the stations that run programming from the Genesis network, etc. I started at the bottom of the totem pole and rose up pretty quickly; most of the people I worked with or have seen doing those jobs since are out of radio or their main goal is to get a weekend gig in Flagstaff or something. Nothing wrong with that, but I wouldn't say most of them are super ambitious people who should be running anything.

Also interesting statistics from David about satellite radio, which, as many know, is basically tapped out as a huge growth market. I spoke to some yutz in NYC the other day who thinks Howard Stern has made Sirius some mighty enterprise. I quickly disabused him of that notion, and said that most people who get satradio in their new cars will never pay for it. I know of two people who loved listening to XM but shut it off when the first bill came.

One student of Radio Brandy had it in her mind she was going to work for Univision, it was her life’s dream since she was 9, after reading David’s post for the last couple of months she has decided to go in another direction. A big loss for Univision as the girl is very talented; you might say she was ready for primetime.

That's a lie. Univision has only been in radio for a couple of years. Unless the girl is 13 and thinks she can get a job at that age in violation of most labor laws, you are making this up.
[/quote]

Why would someone give up on their dreams because of someone on a message board. Personally, I'm invigorated reading David's facts, because the radio-is-dying crowd around here gets old.

 

[calguy]

I started this post as a rant about what I felt was wrong with Radio today. I can see both sides of the story when it comes to many things and that includes David Eduardo's posts. David is a survivor, anyone in the business that long has to be. He has the stat's to back up his opinions and that's pretty cool to be able to pull up the information the way he does. But I still believe that numbers can be spun in any direction by a person with talent. I still feel that way I did when I started this thread and while I may agree with some of what David has said I feel that he may be colored by actually being in management as long as he has. I was speaking for myself and the many people I know in radio who are struggling to make ends meet. I am not some one who fits into any of these categories:

* have never worked in radio.
* are teenagers who want to work in radio. Although that was me many years ago...
* are part-time board-ops who think they should be GM's.
* are disgruntled former employees of certain broadcast companies.
* may be satellite radio paid "press agents".
* are former pros who, for whatever reason, were turned out of their jobs, but remain bitter.
* or, are people with too much time on their hands who simply want to gripe.

I am currently working at a successful radio station and have been for many years. I've only been out of work a few times in my career and those times were tough but lucky for me it was only for short periods of time , so I've been very fortunate. Still, I see people struggling every day and in fact, even with a good job I find it hard to make ends meet for my family. I now have many friends that are out of work and in the current state of radio are having a very hard time finding another job. That's why I wrote about how I feel and my take on the current state of the business. I still think that radio is a viable, magical medium. Right now it suffers from the negative publicity that I feel was started by the satellite companies when they were starting their ventures. They wanted to make terrestrial radio sound bad to get subscribers and it seems to have worked. Not so much to get subscribers, but to make everyone think that it's a lot worse than it really is. Yes, I know that Wall Streets take on the industry is gloomy, but that's because consolidation brought companies into the industry that had no business owning radio as they looked at it like it was a sheet metal factory or something. Those that truly understand the industry are still successful and I believe that radio can be a good money making industry for years to come if we can get back to doing it the right way. I'm rambling now, so I'm signing off for the moment.