Radio Ink royalty reversal

[TVradioguru]

Similarly, bad radio hurts the medium as a whole. And the consolidators have been the leaders in cheapening radio. So what if some Clear Channel and Citadel stations "are among the highest rated in the country"? It's a smaller pie, and they've made it smaller. And the smaller it gets, the bigger the slice the idiot executives will take for themselves, making what's left for programming smaller and smaller, leading to further erosion of the total audience size in a vicious circle.

Bad radio according to who, you? Radio listening, at least on FM, is at an all time high. It sounds as if you're trying to speak on behalf of the millions who listen to domestic radio every hour of every day. Either that, or you were personally displaced by Clear Channel and just assume that because you feel slighted about large group owners, that everybody should.

Look, just because you have hundreds of friends on your Facebook account, doesn't give you the right to speak for all of humanity.

 

[radioskeptic]

I never worked for Cheap Channel or any of the other consolidators, and I don't have a Facebook account. So much for your ridiculous attempt to psychoanalyze me.

Less than a generation ago, before the rise of the internet and MP3 players, one of the the first questions teenagers would ask each other (or young adults they considered their near-contemporaries) was, "What radio station do you listen to?" That was one way they sized up new acquaintances under 30 or so. They don't ask that anymore.

Radio today doesn't have the same place in the lives of high school and college students. They just assume that evrybody has an I-Pod, or at least some knd of MP3 player, and that radio is peripheral to the lives of their peers.

But it isn't just the rise of the internet and personal music players made radio less important to today's youth than it was to the previous two generations. It's also the result of changes in radio itself -- chages that are the baleful effects of consolidation. Those changes followed passage of the 1996 Telecom Act.

And let's not forget that those changes were made possible by only a few provisions of the Act -- amendments to it that the NAB, already thoroughly dominated by the biggest compnaies, lobbied very hard to get. Then, as now, the bean counters thought they knew better than the people who really made radio work. They don't now, and they never did.

 

[TheBigA]

It's also the result of changes in radio itself -- chages that are the baleful effects of consolidation. Those changes followed passage of the 1996 Telecom Act.

Sorry...I don't see that at all. Lots of radio stations are exactly the same as they were 20 years ago, before consolidation. Sure their owners have changed a few times, but their on-air staff and sound is exactly the same. However their audience got older or died. There are thousands of stations like this. It has nothing to do with ownership. Radio became a place of the older generation. Radio didn't adapt to the young. So the younger generation came along, and all they saw was old people, talking about their stuff, playing their music, and completely ignoring them and their culture. Had this happened in the 60s, radio would have died then. But radio had already cleared out some of the older generation after the rise of TV. But it has nothing to do with corporations and consolidation, because the exact same problem has happened at stations owned by individuals, churches, community groups, and public radio. Out of 14,000, less than 2,000 are owned by the big consolidators. In fact, if you go to small town America, there is no such thing as corporate radio or consolidation. But regardless of ownership, the station sounds old. That's no way to attract a young audience. And this process didn't start in 1996. It actually began ten years earlier. In the late 80s, radio stations were already ignoring new music from a new generation. The Gen Xers were developing their own culture and music, and it didn't get played on the radio. If you really want to know what happened to radio, you need to look ten years before 1996. Look at staffing, look at music policies that began before consolidation, and look at ownership trends that began when companies like NBC got out of radio. The irony is that the generation that grew up on radio ultimately killed it because of their refusal to share their medium with the next generations. In some places, you see the exact thing now. Boomers trying to hold on to their youth, demanding radio sound the way it did 40 years ago, while it's obvious what today;s audience wants. It's an absolute shame, because polls show that younger people would listen to the radio if it didn't sound and act so old. So don't blame corporations, bean counters, the NAB, or some Act. Look right in the mirror and ask, "What did I do that opened radio to a new generation?"

 

[TheBigA]

And let's not forget that those changes were made possible by only a few provisions of the Act -- amendments to it that the NAB, already thoroughly dominated by the biggest compnaies, lobbied very hard to get.

There you go again. That's what you said about the current NAB. But it's obvious to anyone who sees the names of the people on the Board, only a handful are from the "biggest companies." Same in the 90s. I've read where people also blame the Republican Congress for passing the Act. Then I show them the names of who voted for it. People like John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and all the other liberals, and they sputter and say they got bought off. But it's not true. The 96 Act may have been one of the last true bi-partisan votes. It passed overwhelmingly by both parties.

But here's the real truth, and it's the scariest one of all: Suppose we got rid of all big radio companies. Reversed the rules to where they were in 1994. What changes do you think it would bring? Who would buy all the stations? Where would they get the money to hire people? And how would a change in ownership change the culture...one that's been set in stone for 25 years? Right now you can buy legendary AM stations, the exact ones the kids listened to in the 60s, for less than the price of a cheap house, and no one's buying.

Back to the royalty, owning and running radio stations will become more expensive in the future. Either this royalty will be forced on radio, or the government will force a spectrum fee. One or the other. Maybe both. Who can afford all the costs, all the legal and technical requirements, and all the personnel costs of owning radio? Right now, state governments are selling their radio. Same with colleges and universities. This is the real problem. Not corporations or bean counters. If non-profit educational institutions can't afford to own radio, then no one can.

 

[local oscillator]

I'm with skeptic. Consolidation has been a disaster for our industry, and we can't flip a switch to return to the ownership rules of 1994 -- the damage has already been done. I also agree that the NAB is a puppet of the big groups. Why would anyone think otherwise? That's where the money is. Sure, there are small broadcasters on the board and committees; they make great window-dressing when the NAB does what it was going to do anyway -- kind of like Democrats saying there were Republicans in the room when they pushed through Obamacare. And "lots of radio stations are the same as they were 20 years ago"? Mine is, because I owned it 20 years ago, but all the Clear Channel, CBS, Cumulus, and Citadel stations that surround me are vastly changed -- and not for the better.

 

[bossbill]

Chicken or egg? Consolidation would not have happened if the Commission had not also opened the can of worms in loosening up the FM Table of Allotments, adding several power sub-classifications, and beginning the process of granting allotments to small towns of a couple hundred residents or less, which just happened to be close to a larger community.

In this scenario of too many signals, broadcasters would not be able to operate under the old ownership caps.

I operate in a nice little two-station rural market. Except that we have 9-10 stations in the market now. There is no way three or four owners could survive given the finite advertising dollars available. So we operate five stations under one roof, with a staff that would have been adequate for one station before consolidation. The alernative would be to turn some licenses in to the FCC, which then would grant them to somebody else... who would then find out how finite the market is.

 

[local oscillator]

Bill, good point. It's true that Docket 80-90 played into the eventual rollout of consolidation, although I don't think they were intentionally linked by the Commission. 80-90 was the result of the demand for more stations and the Commission's interest in spectrum efficiency. Funny though -- how many of the 80-90 stations are still controlled by the original or independent successor owners and how many were spun to the big consolidators for a quick buck? Looking back after these many years, there's no doubt that Docket 80-90 had a disruptive, negative effect on many markets. There was a time when the Commission was concerned with things like stations' financial sustainability, the laws of physics, and public interest. These days it's all about auction proceeds, regulatory fees, and politics. Oh, well.

On a more positive note: Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!

 

[TheBigA]

Chicken or egg? Consolidation would not have happened if the Commission had not also opened the can of worms in loosening up the FM Table of Allotments,

Bingo! Bill is exactly right. Docket 80-90 was driven by the Reagan administration, that was dedicated to cutting budgets of domestic agencies to fund Defense and State. So the FCC knew it had to increase the number of stations, and begin deregulation of broadcasting. They over-licensed the spectrum, and that drove out hundreds of heritage owners, including NBC. When they sold their radio stations as part of the sale to GE, that signaled the start of the end of radio as we knew it. And that was 1988.