No we are not that dumb CC

[aunti-terrestrial]

P.S. Dashing out the door, but I did want to clarify: you hated me and was glad I got fired because I bitched about corporations, but you think I really just hate the corporation because I was fired? Is there time travel involved? Heh---have a good one.

 

[davideduardo]

Bless your heart, I wouldn't want to be whoever you are. I think you speak more clearly for the company you keep touting than anything else anybody could say about it, and it's pretty clear that you're seething with anger. However, I'll leave you with this tantalizing little hint about how a corporate business model runs an industry---several industries---into bargain-rate stock bailouts.

What "bailout?" Clear is going private because a group of investors sees that Wall Street has undervalued Clear Channel. Buyouts usually signify an undervalued company and an opportunity to profit.

The tem "stock bailout" does not exist. If you are anti-business, at least know how business operates. Nearly every one of your assumptions, from buyouts to boards, is wrong. Where did you get this stuff?

Remember this little gem? http://www.songsalive.org/articleclearchannel.html

What, pray tell, does an inaccurate (actually, downright lying) article from years and years ago have to do with anything? Not everything you read on the internet is true, by the way.

While you're getting all mad about it and screaming that it's different somehow now because more stuff has been sold and spun off, we're going to go catch a movie. Cheers.

You just proved that you don't know what a spin-off is in your previous posts. Now you are using the term as if it were a long-time member of your vocabulary. Bizarre.

 

[aunti-terrestrial]

Oh, David, please tell me you don't actually believe the author of that article was lying about all those antitrust lawsuits. I know you live to argue with anybody about anything, but come on.

 

[its time w (your name)]

Eduardo has now convinced me there is no correlation between chickens and eggs.

 

[fredthehead]

Just because the chicken sits on the board of the hen house doesn't not make said chicken have any correlation to the egg. Even if said egg is promoted and marketed by the chicken for the frying pan. Hen house revenues are down due to the illegal downloading of yolks, not because the yolks taste crappy.

 

[davideduardo]

Oh, David, please tell me you don't actually believe the author of that article was lying about all those antitrust lawsuits. I know you live to argue with anybody about anything, but come on.

The reason corporations have in-house legal departments is that lawsuits are a part of business in America. The fact that there were suits filed means nothing unless they were successfully prosecuted. Show me one of those actions where Clear lost.

For about a year, salon.com had a series of articles that bashed Clear Channel. They made accusations regarding programming, management, etc. Many of the claims were so absurd that people in the industry openly laughed at the reporting. Remember, the press electronic or otherwise, dhas never fully understood radio. For years when radio came on the scene,many papers would not print program schedules. The same happened with TV. The same is now happening with the web with the additional issue that the difference between some web reporting and fantasy is nil.

As I said, were you to acquire a bit of knowledge about business, it would help you and you would not be so bitter.

 

[aunti-terrestrial]

Bitter? Oh, ya don't know me all that well. Sorry I haven't been hanging onto the board hoping you'd come up with a straight answer, but I never expect one from you, anyway. So, you believe that CC's problems are merely problems of perception.

You've lost Fredthehead, and many other Houston listeners like him, because you guys quit caring about what he wanted to hear. You can tell him that the Mays family doesn't profit from LiveNation. He doesn't believe you, but keep trying. It's all about perception.

Meanwhile, I guess I should be impressed that CC is able to keep antitrust lawsuits tied up in court for years, except for the way they settled with Nobody In Particular Productions in Denver, days before the case was set for trial, or the way they lost $90 mil in that JamSports and Entertainment suit---$17 million in actual damages, plus another $73 million in punitive damages. More recently, attorneys have filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of concertgoers in Chicago, New England, New York/New Jersey, Colorado, and Southern California. If you've purchased tickets between June '98 to present in any of those markets from any subsidiary of CC, you may be eligible to join the suit. http://www.hagens-berman.com/lawsuit_clearchannel.htm I'm sure it will also be tied up in court for many years. More unfortunate perceptions about CC's wrongdoing, I suppose. You know, the phrase "negative synergy" came from somewhere. For CC, lawsuits may very well be part of the cost of doing business, however, there are plenty of American companies which have never been sued for unethical, illegal, and anti-American business practices even once, much less dozens of times.

Where people perceive there's smoke, you know, they also perceive there's fire. Oh, except that I guess the newly-declared $22 million dollar Great White settlement (bringing CC's total on that fiasco up to, what, $75 million?) doesn't really mean that CC (or the CapStar Radio Operating Company, which is a subsidiary of CC, according to the Associated Press) promoted the concert that erupted in the fatal perception of fire at The Station, after which 99 people---including a damned fine WHJY jock---suddenly perceived themselves to be dead. Even though

CC no longer has a concert division and, thus, can not be promoting concerts. They have not had a concert division for years!

I guess they just felt like giving some money away, because they're so well-known for giving money away.

 

[MechDesign]

The drama of what goes on behind the scenes of radio will never get old.

And this board is just the place.