NAB says it will make radio more "Local"

[Casey]

If this advantage alone is not enough for radio, then changing the ownership cap rules will not make much of a difference.

The subject of this thread is that the NAB wants to adjust the AM/FM subcaps, and their reason isn't to benefit the owners, but rather the public. As I said earlier in this thread, the main company affected by the subcaps is CBS, which owns several heritage AMs, and programs them with 24/7 local news. They could sell those AMs, but everyone knows that any new owner who buys them won't keep them 24/7 local news. Why? Because it's way too expensive a format to do on AM. So you can hold to your opinion, and force CBS to sell its AMs. But when the new owners flip them to satellite talk, I will say "I told you so." That's not a threat. Just look at the rest of the AM dial. What makes you think heritage AMs are immune?

As for Tim Westergrin, he may be a brilliant visionary who took a risk, but his product is losing money, and everyone knows it. He will soon cash out with billions in his pocket, and his once-brilliant invention will either go bankrupt, or will be bought by Clear Channel.

Meanwhile the FCC has over 40 years of terrible regulatory history under its belt. They alone ruined the American system of broadcasting by over-licensing the spectrum, and walking away from the mess they made. They deserve all the blame they can get.

I am well aware what the subject of this thread is, but I fail to see a valid way this will help the public. If the "heritage" AM stations are as successful as you make them out to be, then why would their owners sell them? If they bring in a lot of revenue and they have a strong listening audience, then it shouldn't matter if they are AM or not. No one is forcing CBS to sell their AM stations. If they want another FM because they don't have enough under current rules, then the company needs to be restructured. Not the rules. But, how would changing the subcaps rules prevent the sale of AM's? It would allow station owners to buy my FM's. But how would it stop the sale? If I am not mistaken, the subcaps are one of the things stopping station owners from selling their AM's, because a owner can only have a certain amount of FM's in a market, with the remaining stations being AM. If the subcaps are eliminated or AM's no longer count against a cap, then a station owner could buy more FM's and they wouldn't have a reason to keep their AM's because they would have enough stations to carry their current AM programming on their new FM stations. So it is hurting the public. Am I completely wrong?

The whole key behind Pandora's success is scale. At the rate they are growing, they will be profitable in a matter of time. At the rate they are growing, that will probably be the end of the year. Clear Channel can't afford to buy them out. I wouldn't be shocked if Apple tried.

The FCC has done plenty of bad things. But they haven't ruined anything. Stations owners have done that themselves by making money their top priority and having little concern about content their stations provide.

 

[TheBigA]

If the "heritage" AM stations are as successful as you make them out to be, then why would their owners sell them?

They don't want to sell them, but they HAVE to sell them because of antiquated regulations. That's the point of this.

If they want another FM because they don't have enough under current rules, then the company needs to be restructured. Not the rules.

Why this aversion to changing rules? These weren't great rules to begin with. Everyone agrees they were bad. And we all recognize and admit that times and circumstances have changed since the bad rules were written. So why are you so wedded and defensive about these rules? They were arbitrary to begin with. They weren't based on some scientific principle. It sounds to me like you want to punish owners for something.

The whole key behind Pandora's success is scale. At the rate they are growing, they will be profitable in a matter of time. At the rate they are growing, that will probably be the end of the year.

You don’t understand how music royalties work. The more successful they become, the higher the rate of the royalty. So the costs increase as they become more successful. And we’re about to see another huge rate increase soon, set by the Copyright Royalty Board. The last rate change practically killed them until Congress stepped in and let them negotiate a small discount. If that doesn’t happen again, they’re done.

Pandora isn’t local radio. There is no local talent. It’s just a music service. Westergrin isn’t in the radio business, but the music delivery business. Whether it’s there or not doesn’t matter. Radio could save billions by using their transmitters to provide host free music streams like Pandora. But that’s not what they’re doing. But maybe that’s what radio stations should do. They wouldn’t need local PDs or MDs, because music lists would be built by users. They wouldn’t need talent. They wouldn’t need imaging. Just music and advertising. That’s what you want radio to become?

 

[Casey]

If the "heritage" AM stations are as successful as you make them out to be, then why would their owners sell them?

They don't want to sell them, but they HAVE to sell them because of antiquated regulations. That's the point of this.

If they want another FM because they don't have enough under current rules, then the company needs to be restructured. Not the rules.

Why this aversion to changing rules? These weren't great rules to begin with. Everyone agrees they were bad. And we all recognize and admit that times and circumstances have changed since the bad rules were written. So why are you so wedded and defensive about these rules? They were arbitrary to begin with. They weren't based on some scientific principle. It sounds to me like you want to punish owners for something.

The whole key behind Pandora's success is scale. At the rate they are growing, they will be profitable in a matter of time. At the rate they are growing, that will probably be the end of the year.

You don’t understand how music royalties work. The more successful they become, the higher the rate of the royalty. So the costs increase as they become more successful. And we’re about to see another huge rate increase soon, set by the Copyright Royalty Board. The last rate change practically killed them until Congress stepped in and let them negotiate a small discount. If that doesn’t happen again, they’re done.

Pandora isn’t local radio. There is no local talent. It’s just a music service. Westergrin isn’t in the radio business, but the music delivery business. Whether it’s there or not doesn’t matter. Radio could save billions by using their transmitters to provide host free music streams like Pandora. But that’s not what they’re doing. But maybe that’s what radio stations should do. They wouldn’t need local PDs or MDs, because music lists would be built by users. They wouldn’t need talent. They wouldn’t need imaging. Just music and advertising. That’s what you want radio to become?

They don't have to sell anything. If they end up selling them it is because they want to sell them and nothing more. They don't need more FM stations, they want more FM stations.

The rules are not good. But changing them will not benefit anyone but the station owners. Changing ownership caps will not benefit the locally owned and operated radio stations, the ones that really help the communities. It will benefit corporately owned radio stations, which in return hurts everyone.

No, you don't know how music royalties work. Pandora pays royalties based on per-play or a percentage of their total revenue, whichever is higher. Since the cost per song is higher for Pandora, they pay a set rate per song streamed the entire year, regardless of the amount of songs streamed. They could have 1 million listeners or 100 million. The rate is the same because they pay sound exchange based on the pure-play license, which is per-play or 20%. They don't have licenses like Spotify does. If they can get a high enough revenue per hour to pay for both royalties and all other expenses, they will turn a profit. Success has nothing to do with it. If the royalty rate does climb significantly in the future and Pandora is unable to negotiate with sound exchange, then they just have to go to the labels and license directly. The labels would be more than happy to oblige. Problem solved.

Pandora not being local has nothing to do with this conversation. My reason for mentioning Pandora is because Pandora is a company that took a risk to create a product people love. Radio needs to be more risk taking. Instead of trying to get the rules changed so they can get more FM stations, they should be working with what they have. Create stations that offer more in-depth formats, more local content. As I have said, the only reason Pandora and SirirusXM even exist is because broadcast radio was not sufficient. That is broadcast radio's problem, and changing ownership caps will not help them if the content they offer is still unsatisfactory.

 

[SirRoxalot]

If there's any change in the ownership caps that has reduced the diversity of programming it was raising ownership caps in the first place. Simply put, fewer owners mean less diversity. You'll argue that raising the caps "saved" the industry. I contend that raising the caps fueled a massive increase in station prices, based on lending that didn't realistically value the broadcast properties, causing massive cuts in the industry, and reducing the level of service to listeners. Several large companies went bust. Several others are on the edge.

If the FCC hadn't raised caps to the current level, some stations would have gone bust. Some may have gone dark. Unworkable facilities would have disappeared. Workable facilities would have thrived because you wouldn't have as many "spoilers" and "flankers" out there. More companies involved in the broadcast business would mean more ideas in the broadcast business. That doesn't sound like a bad thing to me.

 

[TheBigA]

Changing ownership caps will not benefit the locally owned and operated radio stations, the ones that really help the communities. It will benefit corporately owned radio stations, which in return hurts everyone.

Give me examples of locally owned and operated radio stations that run 24/7 all local news on AM.

If they can get a high enough revenue per hour to pay for both royalties and all other expenses, they will turn a profit.

Increasing revenues means either more advertising, or increasing fees. More advertising makes them more like OTA radio. More fees make them more like satellite. Neither is good for the long term business model. They are succeeding because they were unique, and because they were cheap. Now there are alternatives, and those alternatives will be increasing. They will be offered by companies that have multiple platforms to work from, thereby allowing them to offer the service cheaper.

Instead of trying to get the rules changed so they can get more FM stations, they should be working with what they have. Create stations that offer more in-depth formats, more local content.

They have been working with what they have for a long time. They’ve learned that in-depth formats don’t attract large audiences. In-depth formats are fine for one-on-one platforms like the internet. So they offer those kinds of things there. And there’s a ton of local content. The public wants variety. More choices. Easier to do on platforms where there are no ownership caps. When you can only own 3 or 5 stations, you can only do 3 or 5 formats. If you’re competing against four other companies, you may duplicate one or two formats. That’s bad for variety.

The current ownership rules force owners to run a few low-audience formats. The current ownership rules limit the percentage of the market revenues they can take. No one is asking for those rules to change, so there are already controls on monopolies. All they’re asking for is to have their AMs not count against them in the market. That’s not a big deal. You simply don’t want to do something the NAB wants. As I said, this is more about punishment than practicality.

 

[TheBigA]

If there's any change in the ownership caps that has reduced the diversity of programming it was raising ownership caps in the first place. Simply put, fewer owners mean less diversity.

That's absolutely wrong. Look at satellite. One owner. 100 different music channels. When you have no competition, you have no risk, and no reason to duplicate formats.

More companies involved in the broadcast business would mean more ideas in the broadcast business. That doesn't sound like a bad thing to me.

Sounds great. How do you get more companies in the broadcast business? For years, the arguement was that the stations cost too much. Now they're at 30 year lows. Stations are 1/10th the price they were just five years ago. Show me all the new owners rushing in to buy. Companies aren't going to invest their money in a highly regulated business where costs could be imposed by Congress (they're currently considering a spectrum fee) or a valuable license could be taken away. They do not want to invest money in a business where there are ownership caps set by the federal government.

You guys are living in the land of mythology, where we still operate in the 1960s, and nothing has changed. A lot has changed, and continues to change, but these federal rules, set in place before the explosion of the internet and cell phones, are constraining any growth or incentive for growth. Leaving the caps where they are will not induce more companies to enter the broadcast business.

 

[KeyTimes950]

A few thoughts, if I may ...

Newspaper-radio-television co-ownership did produce monopolies once upon a time. In Johnstown, PA, for instance, there was a family-owned newspaper, the Tribune-Democrat, which ran WJAC-AM-FM-TV. Was that a good thing? I would leave the judgment to my friends in west-central Pennsylvania, however ...

Eventually, the Tribune-Democrat was sold to a national chain that seemed intent on dumbing down all its properties, WJAC-TV6 became part of Cox Broadcasting (which also owns WPXI-TV in nearby Pittsburgh and WTOV-TV in Steubenville, Ohio, on the other side of Pittsburgh), WJAC-AM850 eventually wound up being a Birach property leased out to a local operator who also has a talk station on AM 1400 a few miles up the road in Loretto and WJAC-FM95.5 now is Forever's Froggy 95.5, which is the object of rumors that it might be moved closer to Pittsburgh.

Pittsburgh had two newspaper-owned broadcast operations at one time. The Sun-Telegraph (Hearst) was tied to WCAE Radio (now Disney's WDDZ), as well as an FM and Pittsburgh's third TV, WTAE-4. That was short-lived as the Sun-Telegraph was folded into the Post-Gazette in the 1960s.

The Post-Gazette (Block family) had interests in WWSW/AM-FM and WIIC-TV (now WPXI). The Press (Scripps-Howard) did not have a broadcast license but was closely identified until it folded in the early 1990s with KDKA/TV-AM-FM. Interestingly enough, the KDKA stations now are broadcast partners with the Post-Gazette.

The Tribune-Review (Richard Mellon Scaife) has an Internet sports talk station. Its owner also helped bankroll KQV-AM1410 when the late Robert W. Dickey bought it from Taft. The Trib now has a partnership with WPXI (it formerly had ties to WTAE) but also provides some reporting to KQV, which is all news during the day, talk and classic radio overnight.

My belief is that KQV would be better off now if the FCC allowed Scaife to outright own it, but Scaife also owns six other suburban newspapers. A waiver would be hard to obtain.

I also can break down the rest of existing Pittsburgh radio ownership, for what it is worth ... I doubt much change will happen in Pittsburgh radio anytime soon, regardless of rule changes, but one can see potential between the lines, even in a city that now I believe has fallen out of the Top 25 markets (back in the day of the Sun-Telegraph it was a Top 10 market). (I'm really being an optimist even to say "between the lines," but one always can hope.)

Clear Channel owns the old WWSW/AM-FM, the AM as a sports-talk station, WBGG, the FM with its original call letters and classic rock. It also owns four other FMs in the market and programs sports talk specialities on three HD2 channels (one a WBGG simulcast, the others for the Steelers and Penguins).

CBS owns KDKA/AM-FM (heritage news/talk AM, sports-talk FM) as well as two other music FMs (country and what I think is hot AC).

Pittsburgh is Renda's home base, with WJAS-AM (nostalgia), WMNY-AM (licensed to McKeesport, national-oriented news-talk) and WSHH-FM (AC), as well as a lot of ties to a Greensburg sibling, WHJB-FM (classic rock).

Pittsburgh also is home base for Keymarket, whose owners also are involved in Forever Broadcasting in some nearby cities and states. Keymarket has two Mon Valley AMs that simulcast either its three Froggy (country) FMs (this does NOT include, for now, that Johnstown station) or its two Pickle (classic rock) FMs. For financial reasons it LMA'd out a fourth Froggy FM now programming K-Love.

It also has Steel City Media, which runs an alternative weekly newspaper, an Internet station which runs a daily talk show with local progressive host Lynn Cullen, and two FMs, WLTJ (Q92.9) and WRRK-96.9 (Bob FM), each with four HD music streams.

Finally, there's Salem with WPIT-AM (religion and talk) and WORD-FM (religion-influenced talk. Yes, there's a difference), Wilkins with WWNL-AM1080 (preachers and barter over 50,000 daytime watts) and Birach with WWCS-AM540 (these days running Fox Sports Radio's national feed 24/7).

No, I didn't include the suburban AMs and FMs, but one only can write so much ...

 

[Casey]

Changing ownership caps will not benefit the locally owned and operated radio stations, the ones that really help the communities. It will benefit corporately owned radio stations, which in return hurts everyone.

Give me examples of locally owned and operated radio stations that run 24/7 all local news on AM.

If they can get a high enough revenue per hour to pay for both royalties and all other expenses, they will turn a profit.

Increasing revenues means either more advertising, or increasing fees. More advertising makes them more like OTA radio. More fees make them more like satellite. Neither is good for the long term business model. They are succeeding because they were unique, and because they were cheap. Now there are alternatives, and those alternatives will be increasing. They will be offered by companies that have multiple platforms to work from, thereby allowing them to offer the service cheaper.

Instead of trying to get the rules changed so they can get more FM stations, they should be working with what they have. Create stations that offer more in-depth formats, more local content.

They have been working with what they have for a long time. They’ve learned that in-depth formats don’t attract large audiences. In-depth formats are fine for one-on-one platforms like the internet. So they offer those kinds of things there. And there’s a ton of local content. The public wants variety. More choices. Easier to do on platforms where there are no ownership caps. When you can only own 3 or 5 stations, you can only do 3 or 5 formats. If you’re competing against four other companies, you may duplicate one or two formats. That’s bad for variety.

The current ownership rules force owners to run a few low-audience formats. The current ownership rules limit the percentage of the market revenues they can take. No one is asking for those rules to change, so there are already controls on monopolies. All they’re asking for is to have their AMs not count against them in the market. That’s not a big deal. You simply don’t want to do something the NAB wants. As I said, this is more about punishment than practicality.

I never said there were any locally owned AMs that ran 24/7 news. But for that matter, there are very few stations that do run 24/7 news. It takes a pretty good sized market to support that type of a station, and most of the current markets that can support one already have one run by a corporate broadcaster, making it difficult if not impossible to break into the market.

Pandora's revenue problem stems from the fact that most of their listeners are listening from mobile devices, who currently make significantly less revenue per 1000 hours than those listening through the desktop. If Pandora can increase the revenue made per 1000 hours on mobile devices, they will have a good business. Increasing ads is one way of accomplishing the feat. The other would be to offer types of ads that bring more money. That could be accomplished through more targeted advertising, or delivering types of ads that catch the listeners attention better. Even if Pandora does have to increase total ads, they will have a longs ways to go before they reach that of a broadcast radio station. I have heard stations play more minutes per hour in commercials than music.

Ownership rules have always been problematic. But changing or eliminating subcaps is going to do more damage than good.

 

[TheBigA]

Ownership rules have always been problematic. But changing or eliminating subcaps is going to do more damage than good.

But you've failed to present any documented facts why change would do more damage than good, other than you don't like corporate radio. You didn't address my points that owners have worked with the rules as they are, and have maxed out the possibilities under the current structure.

You need to get over your dislikes, deal with the realities of the marketplace, and allow change to take place. The owners we have now are likely to be here for the long haul. The status quo isn't good. We will not be returning to the rules of the past. So some kind of change will need to take place in order for the industry to grow.

 

[SirRoxalot]

If there's any change in the ownership caps that has reduced the diversity of programming it was raising ownership caps in the first place. Simply put, fewer owners mean less diversity.

That's absolutely wrong. Look at satellite. One owner. 100 different music channels. When you have no competition, you have no risk, and no reason to duplicate formats.

To quote an iconoclast, "That's absolutely wrong." Satellite has one owner, but competes with every terrestrial radio station on the planet. They have 100 different music channels because they've chosen to have 100 channels (with crappy, narrow bandwidth) in order to get as many disenfranchised radio listeners as possible to tune in. Their subscription model is based on raw numbers of listeners, no matter what the demo. Their advertising model is based on targeting demographics no matter what format they listen to. Terrestrial radio simply can't do that.

How do you get more companies in the broadcast business? For years, the arguement was that the stations cost too much. Now they're at 30 year lows. Stations are 1/10th the price they were just five years ago. Show me all the new owners rushing in to buy.

What stations are available to buy? Cast-offs that the major groups don't want. Limited signals, with technical problems, mostly ill-maintained, in groups of one or two. If you do buy in, and take on the major owners, they'll undercut your rates with the same format on a better signal the minute you start to make some headway. Anybody with any broadcasting experience understands that's a suckers game, unless you're targeting an audience that the big guys don't want.

You guys are living in the land of mythology, where we still operate in the 1960s, and nothing has changed. A lot has changed, and continues to change, but these federal rules, set in place before the explosion of the internet and cell phones, are constraining any growth or incentive for growth. Leaving the caps where they are will not induce more companies to enter the broadcast business.

No, we're very aware that a LOT changed in '80s, and in 1996. The Internet and cell phones are becoming victims of their own success. Data caps, increased costs, and lack of spectrum for 4G service in many areas are serious problems that cellular has to overcome. A lot of providers were banking on the spectrum owned by Lightsquared. Well, Lightsquared looks like it's dead in the water. The deal between Verizon and several cable providers for wireless spectrum might help in the long term, but they'll need to spend considerable time and money to make that spectrum available to end users.

Radio's still a bargain for end users. Keep listeners in mind, and radio will not only survive, it will thrive.

 

[TheBigA]

Their advertising model is based on targeting demographics no matter what format they listen to. Terrestrial radio simply can't do that.

Sure they can and do. Some sales is based on format, but almost all is based on demos. That’s the whole concept of cluster sales.

Meanwhile, you've said nothing that defends your absolutely wrong statement.

What stations are available to buy?

The Inner City stations are available right now. They include top quality signals in major markets at bargain prices. The Family Radio stations just went at bargain prices in DC and Philly. One will be available soon in NY. Buckley would love to sell WOR 710AM in NYC. How’s that to start?

Radio's still a bargain for end users. Keep listeners in mind, and radio will not only survive, it will thrive.

That doesn’t address the issue in this thread, which is the AM/FM subcaps. No one is saying radio isn’t profitable. None of the owners nor the NAB are asking for a bailout or removing all ownership caps. They just don’t want AMs to be counted the same as FMs. That should be a no-brainer.

 

[SirRoxalot]

My "absolutely wrong" statement was:

If there's any change in the ownership caps that has reduced the diversity of programming it was raising ownership caps in the first place. Simply put, fewer owners mean less diversity.

.

You've yet to prove that the statement is "absolutely wrong" as it pertains to radio. Your using satellite radio as an example of "greater variety" is what's known as a red herring. Satellite and terrestrial radio have little in common. There's NO market in the country with 100 signals, and certainly no owner with 100 signals in any market. You seriously believe that putting more stations in the hands of fewer owners will increase diversity in entertainment? It hasn't worked out that way since consolidation began.

Terrestrial radio can bundle, but it can't target demos as specifically as satellite. Once again, you're comparing apples to oranges. Why not compare radio to Internet streaming? You could have MILLIONS of formats, and target individual listeners if you were willing to put in the time and money.

If CBS, or anybody else, wants to buy FMs, they simply have to give up their AMs. They're not willing to do it. Sorry, but concentration of radio into fewer hands has NEVER increased the diversity of offerings for the listening public. We have owners who will deliberately kill viable signals to prevent competition with their other signals. That certainly doesn't promote diversity of content.

All of this DOES address the issue of AM/FM subcaps. On one hand, you don't want AMs to be counted the same as FMs. In fact, you don't want them to count against market caps at all. If that isn't declaring them valueless, I don't know what is. If they're valueless, then sell 'em, or give 'em away and buy more FMs. Giving more signals to the current owners simply hasn't created more diversity in content - local or otherwise.

 

[TheBigA]

You've yet to prove that the statement is "absolutely wrong" as it pertains to radio.

It's basic logic. Why would an owner want to compete against himself? In markets where one company owns 90% of the stations in the market (and there are several), there is no format duplication.

You seriously believe that putting more stations in the hands of fewer owners will increase diversity in entertainment? It hasn't worked out that way since consolidation began.

Sure it has. There are more formats now than in the days of 7-7-7. That is an absolute fact. And there is less format duplication now. There was a time when there were 5 beautiful music stations in NYC. Can you imagine? At one time, there was one type of rock radio. Now there are at least 5.

If CBS, or anybody else, wants to buy FMs, they simply have to give up their AMs. They're not willing to do it.

Sure they are. That’s not the point. The point is that if they do, how will that result in more localism or better programming for the public? The answer is it won’t. Because none of the other major companies will buy them. And they’ll instead be sold to owners who’ll do what they’ve done to all the other AMs in the country, which is run national syndication. How is that good for the public?

Case in point: Buckley wants to sell WOR in NYC. Clear Channel would love to buy it, but they can’t. Who else can buy it? It’s been on the market for a year. Where are all the “real broadcasters” out there wanting to buy a 50K clear channel? Owning a single AM in NYC is costly and impractical. So the station stays on the market. How does this serve the public?

Sorry, but concentration of radio into fewer hands has NEVER increased the diversity of offerings for the listening public.

You keep saying this as though it’s true, and it’s not. Look in Buffalo. Does Entercom duplicate formats? Of course not. They’d be crazy to. If they sold one of their stations, the new owner would likely program it in a format already available in the market, not something new. So how does that increase the diversity of offerings to the public? It doesn’t.

On one hand, you don't want AMs to be counted the same as FMs. In fact, you don't want them to count against market caps at all. If that isn't declaring them valueless, I don't know what is.

First of all, this isn’t “me,” but the NAB. Second of all, no, they don’t want them declared valueless. No one has ever said that. You’re making crap up. It’s not about the value, but about the service. AM and FM are not the same. That’s an obvious fact. So why should they be counted as the same?

Meanwhile you still haven’t proven the absolutely wrong statement, which you repeated three time in this post, that more owners mean more format diversity. It never has, and it never will. But even if it did, where are all these new owners you keep talking about?

 

[davideduardo]

Satellite has one owner, but competes with every terrestrial radio station on the planet. They have 100 different music channels because they've chosen to have 100 channels (with crappy, narrow bandwidth) in order to get as many disenfranchised radio listeners as possible to tune in. Their subscription model is based on raw numbers of listeners, no matter what the demo. Their advertising model is based on targeting demographics no matter what format they listen to. Terrestrial radio simply can't do that.

Satellite has no advertising model for its music formats. The ad model for the talk channels has more to do with filling the holes in Fox New or CNN than in any ability to truly supplement subscriber revenue with ads.

Satellite is almost 100% an in-car proposition, and that amounts to a much smaller amount of time than radio can command as most radio listening has been, traditionally, not in the car. So the AQH persons on the music channels all bundled up is really no more than the sum of perhaps the top 6 or 7 New York City stations... hardly something they can use to replace those $500 million dollar satellites that are in decaying orbit with.

Plus, they really don't have accurate data on who is listening... just on how many cars they are in. I have Sirius / XM in 3 cars, and they have never even asked me my age, income level, or anything else. They may know the demos, via car registrations, but they are clueless on the demos of those who actually drive the cars.

(Oh, I have satellite because in the two under-market-100 places I live have such terrible radio that I'd rather have the quirky, stiff filled XM playlists than the local stuff on terrestrial. But that is the elephant nobody wants to notice, although the beast is standing in the middle of the room.)

Bad comparison.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Once again, you ignore arguements that disagree with you, and you fail to provide any material to back up wide-ranging statements that you claim are "facts".

The only places where one owner has 90% of the stations in a market has to be a small market. Hardly a fair comparison to large or major market radio. Even in small markets, I'd bet that there are AM/FM simulcasts that didn't exist before '96, meaning that there is less format diversity.

Imagine, 5 Beautiful Music stations in NYC. Wow, there's duplication for you. Well, now there are 19 stations that identify themselves as a form of AC in NYC. And I can't remember a time when there was "one form of rock radio" in NYC - and I go back a few years. Offer some proof that there were fewer formats during the days of 7-7-7. I don't think you can do it.

Buckley wants to sell WOR. First of all, it's a 50KW directional that puts its biggest lobe out over the Atlantic Ocean. Yeah, it covers Manhattan, but it's hardly the "50K clear channel" that you describe. Anybody who buys it will have to compete with the flagship stations for several nationwide chains and several FMs pursuing the talk audience. And you wonder why nobody's lining up to pay big dollars for WOR? Especially with the state of AM radio in these days of I-BUZ and narrow bandwidths?

As far as Buffalo is concerned, Entercom's a poor choice to illustrate your point. 50KW WWKB - one a monster up and down the east coast - languishes in under-1 land in the ratings because Entercom has programmed it to not challenge their heritage news/talker or sports/talker. It's gets lower numbers than their "computer in a box" Solid Gold Soul on 1400 - and you'd better believe that's by design. If there was an FM available, they'd have to sell an AM. They'd do that in a NY minute - and it likely wouldn't be KB because they don't want anybody to challenge them with a full-market signal. There's definitely less variety of formats in Buffalo radio now than there was before 1996. If you're going to dispute that, you need to prove it. You've certainly demonstrated elsewhere that you're really clueless about the Buffalo market, so you need to come up with some facts to back up you opinions if you want to be taken seriously.

You're defending the proposal to not count AMs as far as market caps are concerned. Well, what are market caps all about? Aren't they designed to prevent one, or a few owners from monopolizing a market? Excluding AMs from the market cap absolutely infers that they're valueless as far as preventing domination of the market is concerned. Obviously, based on ratings, that's simply not true. Asking them to be excluded makes no sense, and certainly won't increase diversity of programming.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Satellite has no advertising model for its music formats. The ad model for the talk channels has more to do with filling the holes in Fox New or CNN than in any ability to truly supplement subscriber revenue with ads.

Heh. Tell that to Stern listeners.

Satellite is almost 100% an in-car proposition, and that amounts to a much smaller amount of time than radio can command as most radio listening has been, traditionally, not in the car. So the AQH persons on the music channels all bundled up is really no more than the sum of perhaps the top 6 or 7 New York City stations... hardly something they can use to replace those $500 million dollar satellites that are in decaying orbit with.

Funny. Satellite seems to be pushing on-line listening big-time lately. And offering smart phone apps. They'd sure LIKE to be on in places besides the car. And, I know personally of a lot of businesses that are running satellite radio as a Muzak replacement.

Plus, they really don't have accurate data on who is listening... just on how many cars they are in. I have Sirius / XM in 3 cars, and they have never even asked me my age, income level, or anything else. They may know the demos, via car registrations, but they are clueless on the demos of those who actually drive the cars.

So they don't have accurate data, huh? Gee, doesn't the PPM decode satellite? Isn't on-line listening tracked? Doesn't Siriux/XM offer audience estimates? What, they just make those numbers up?

(Oh, I have satellite because in the two under-market-100 places I live have such terrible radio that I'd rather have the quirky, stiff filled XM playlists than the local stuff on terrestrial. But that is the elephant nobody wants to notice, although the beast is standing in the middle of the room.)

Bad comparison.

Do tell. And just what markets are you talking about? And, are they locally programmed, or just repeating the canned SPAM from some corporate syndication? You live in two under-market-100 places that actually have live, local radio? Seems pretty rare these days.

 

[TheBigA]

Once again, you ignore arguements that disagree with you, and you fail to provide any material to back up wide-ranging statements that you claim are "facts".

And once again you've failed to prove that more owners mean more format diversity. All you've done is attack my points. Me being wrong does not make you right.

Excluding AMs from the market cap absolutely infers that they're valueless as far as preventing domination of the market is concerned. Obviously, based on ratings, that's simply not true.

The key word is "infers." But the fact is that you yourself gave an example of what a new owner of WOR would face if it wasn't one of the corporate groups. So if the market caps do not encourage new owners to buy AM stations, then why use those same market caps to prevent qualified broadcasters with quality resources from buying them? What benefit is it to the public to maintain the status quo?

 

[SirRoxalot]

"infer"? What, you don't understand the meaning of the work?

Here, let me help you expand your vocabulary: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infer

Yes, I've attacked your points, and shown that you've been wrong. I've offered an alternate set of points that you haven't proved wrong. That might not make me right, but it sure means that you've lost the arguement.

As far as "quality broadcasters with quality resources" is concerned, they're generally the ones who own the AMs now. What are they doing with them? Well, the ones that they want to get rid of are generally flankers, or formats that they've already moved to FM. Giving more stations - AM or FM - to current owners simply won't expand the offerings for the listening audience. Remember, what you're talking about isn't giving them more AMs. It's all about giving them more FMs. That would simply mean more simulcasts of fading AMs in the belief that it's the band, not the programming thats preventing younger audiences from tuning in to Rush and his ilk.

 

[davideduardo]

Funny. Satellite seems to be pushing on-line listening big-time lately. And offering smart phone apps. They'd sure LIKE to be on in places besides the car. And, I know personally of a lot of businesses that are running satellite radio as a Muzak replacement.

But the fact is that there is very little on-line usage, as it adds about $5 a month to a subscription that is expensive already. And to listen in a store requires an outside antenna... something not everyone will do; that is a limited usage.

So they don't have accurate data, huh? Gee, doesn't the PPM decode satellite?

Have you seen any PPM data for satellite?

Isn't on-line listening tracked?

Compared to the pureplays and major radio groups, Sirius/XM has little online listening. The subscription cost no doubt limits this.

Doesn't Siriux/XM offer audience estimates? What, they just make those numbers up?

The fact is that the sum total of the satellite music listening is comparable to the AQH of the top stations in NY city alone. However, the music stations don't take ads. The talk offerings, aside from Stern, are not that interesting in that they are full of 5 to 6 minute "holes" for the commercial breaks... and the audience size is not enough to generate huge rates...

Do the math: 20 million subscribers and the average person is in their car less than an hour a day (discounting the subscribers who got satellite because they travel between cities, truckers, etc.) so the Persons Using Satellite is going to be about 5% of the total at any given time... or 1 million. Of those, most will be using music channels that are non-commercial, so talk might have a couple of hundred thousand on average (including Stern in the average) which is what three or four NY stations can aggregate. Not much to justify a high rate.

Do tell. And just what markets are you talking about? And, are they locally programmed, or just repeating the canned SPAM from some corporate syndication? You live in two under-market-100 places that actually have live, local radio? Seems pretty rare these days.

Palm Springs, CA and Prescott / Flagstaff, AZ. There are lots of locally programmed stations in the desert, but they are, for the most part, mediocre in presentation, music selection and rotation, local commercial production, etc. Northern Arizona has some live stations, but the ones that are automated and jockless are better. In both cases, breaking local news (like a 4 hour tie-up of the only freeway out of the desert) is not reported or is reported waaaaayyyy after the fact. Both markets are intensely over-radioed and it's obvious that nobody makes much money.

The only real "corporate" station in the desert is owned by CBS, and is among the better operations with fairly decent talent and presentation of its totally local AC format. Northern AZ has no Cumulus / Clear Channel type owners.

 

[TheBigA]

"infer"? What, you don't understand the meaning of the work?

You mean "the word?" No. I understand it well. Thanks for asking.

I've offered an alternate set of points that you haven't proved wrong. That might not make me right, but it sure means that you've lost the arguement.

Or that I don't want to waste my time on things that don't relate to the topic. There you go "inferring" again. You're more interested in proving me wrong than proving you're right, and that isn't how to win arguements.

This isn't debate class. If it was, then by that same logic, you've lost the arguement that more owners mean more formats, because you still haven't proven that. And since you also haven't addressed the point that the current caps haven't attracted new owners with new ideas and better programming, you've lost that one too. And since this thread is about the caps, and not all the other things you've brought up that I didn't address, I'd suggest you lost the arguement.