The Declining state of radio and your opinion why...

[TheBigA]

There is a vast difference between being connected to ABC, CBS, NBC (Red and/or Blue), AP and Mutual and today's market conditions, in which companies like the C's and E's own a thousand properties and market caps can reach combinations of eight.

Here are the ways in which they are very similar: (1) Programming is piped in from another market; (2) The outside programming replaces local staffing; (3) A portion of the money goes to an outside company; (4) The local station is required to carry the network programming.

From the POV of the listener, what's the difference? In fact, the listeners seemed to prefer the national programming, and 70 years later, it's all we know about that era of radio. As networks declined, you had the rise of outside programming suppliers and consultants who basically did the exact same thing, took local programming out of the hands of the station. Had the 96 Act not allowed more ownership, larger companies had already begun LMAs of smaller ones.

So that's how they are similar. Tell me how it's different.

The cross-ownership of radio by other industries began to end in the 1970s. The FCC forced newspapers to sell radio in 1977. That was a terrible decision. Then, numerous insurance companies and electronics companies began to sell in the 1980s. The sales of RCA in 1988 was a huge game changer for radio. But one can't minimize the effects of ABC to Cap Cities and CBS to Lowes. The bigger issue was the demise of cross-ownership and the rise of radio-only companies. That happened 10 years before deregulation.

 

[TheBigA]

Before 1996, there was, in my educated and reality-based estimation, much more diversity and flexibility because well-managed, disciplined stations owned by small and medium size groups and independents made money, offered more diverse programming and most important as it relates to this discussion and thread, created job opportunities on the air, in engineering and sales.

Things change. And things were changing by the early 90s, caused by the things I mentioned earlier: Docket 80-90 and the growth of FM. Because of declining market share, stations were making far less money than before. The writing was on the wall. Radio was not the profitable business it had been. That's why outside companies sold out. As far as programming diversity, that’s a myth. A study of program formats prior to 1996 will show fewer format choices in each market, because of format competition. You were more likely to have three or four stations in the exact same format then. That wasn’t format diversity, but format duplication. And regarding job opportunities, that’s just life in the 21st century. Technology and outsourcing has killed just about every industry in this country, not just radio. Plus supply and demand. The expansion of radio in the 80s caused by Docket 80-90 created an artificial expansion of hiring. At the same time, you had a huge explosion in the teaching of broadcasting at colleges and universities. That expanded the number of applicants. Once the marketplace absorbed Docket 80-90 and the FM expansion, which was in the early 90s, job opportunities started to dry up. But the supply of new applicants increased, cheapening the value of low level applicants. As I said, it's a combination of factors that brought us to where we are now.

 

[SirRoxalot]

There was a major battle over "chain broadcasting" between the FCC and the networks after the FCC was created by the Communications Act of 1934. In 1940 the Federal Communications Commission issued the "Report on Chain Broadcasting". The report limited the amount of time during the day, and what times the networks may broadcast. Previously a network could demand any time it wanted from an affiliate. The second concerned artist bureaus. The networks served as both agents and employees of artists, which was a conflict of interest the report rectified. So, even during the "Golden Era", external control of local programming was deemed a problem by the FCC.

As it turned out, this is what helped establish the value of local radio to the nation over the next half-century. Since 1990, the consolidators have been trying to reverse that practice in a number of ways, from syndication and voice-tracking to reducing the role of local personalities during the majority of dayparts. It ain't about quality programming. It's all about maximizing profit. The "localization" concerns by the FCC are simply a recognition that some of the consolidators are trying to end-run existing FCC law, and there's PLENTY of money flowing into the coffers of influential politicians trying to make sure that it goes nowhere.

 

[TheBigA]

As it turned out, this is what helped establish the value of local radio to the nation over the next half-century.

To whom? The owners didn't like sharing their revenue with the networks, so as soon as they could, they replaced national live performance that featured original music and entertainment with recorded music and local hosts. The intent was to fool the public into thinking they were still hearing quality original programming, but instead they were getting commercially available recordings.It was all done to maximize the profits of the owners. At first, the musicians union and record labels objected and took them to court. The courts ruled that playing commercially available recordings on the radio wasn't a violation of the law. So the radio station owners prevailed in replacing live musicians with recordings, thus keeping all the money for themselves. So "the value of local radio" was a further cheapening of programming by replacing live music with recordings. Ironic that years later, recordings of on air talent led to their replacement as well. It's just another brick in the wall.

As far as conflict of interest, those rules were replaced many years ago. Very little of the 1940s rules apply today. Bringing them up ignores all the new rules that have replaced them. In the old days, networks weren't allowed to own production companies. Not any more. Theater and movie companies weren't allowed to own networks. Not any more. The fact that Comcast can own NBC Universal really says it all in terms of ownership today. To force radio to operate under different rules would put it at a disadvantage in the marketplace, and would make it even less attractive to advertisers, content providers, and potential owners.

 

[Silkie]

When they are doing wrong and have no dignity, self respect or character in themselves, it is not their desire to do right, except in pretense; and in so doing their own ill deeds betray them. These are the ones who are out of touch with any form of reality of life or or even basic existence. Garbage, in short. That is a listener perspective.

 

[stalkthisboard]

"But having a few people like Bob Rich establish a big business in a town can be a game changer."
A-man: One of the advantages of posting to a board in a town you spent 5 minutes in is knowing everything but the fact that what Bob Rich Sr. built 70 years ago is all but gone from the Buffalo employment marketplace - locals know that the corporate offices are all that is left.
BTW - Listener-in: did I hear you say that taxes were not a problem in NY State? The reason that housing is so inexpensive here is that, with taxes, the cost of housing is still high vs. other parts of the country. My daughter and her husband in Mass. pay 1/3 the taxes I pay on a house that is (market value) worth 2X the value of my home. If they paid our tax rates or if I had to pay the mortgage on their house, we'd both be tenants in small apartments.

 

[listener-in]

The fact is that we've become a country of stockholders. More than half of the population own stock, either through mutual funds or various retirement plans. With banks paying less than 1% interest, it's the only way for anyone to get ahead. So while a lot of people agree with you in principle, their attitude changes when they look at their retirement statement every month. The other big change is that we became a country of lawsuits and lawyers. That led to the at-will employee. That means you agree to indentured servitude. Once again, it's about creating jobs at the expense of employee rights.

It's been a long slow process to get where we are. It didn't just happen recently. One law didn't cause it. It's been a series of things. And we all had opportunities to step up and say "no." But we didn't, and that led those with an organized agenda move in. That, in a nutshell, is how we got here.

What you given is a very accurate description of the steady - and very deliberate - shift in the social contract these last 3 decades that allowed the "haves" to hoard for themselves just about all of the added fruits that our society has generated. I seriously doubt whether we became a country of stockholders from choice; I far preferred getting a guaranteed 5% from a bank savings account, which you could do in the '70s, over risking my money on Wall Street. And that's what they are trying to do with Social Security. You are right, we had the chance to say "no", but whenever we did so, our concerns were dismissed by people in politics and the media who thought they knew better. Nobody could have predicted when something like the Occupy movement would take off, but it was a stone cold certainty that it would happen eventually. Among other things, Occupy has exposed a bizarre world in which free speech expressed by the common people peaceably assembling is less free than free speech expressed by corrupt oligarchs showering corrupt politicians with unlimited amounts of money.

 

[Philip_Airtime]

The fact is that we've become a country of stockholders. More than half of the population own stock, either through mutual funds or various retirement plans. With banks paying less than 1% interest, it's the only way for anyone to get ahead. So while a lot of people agree with you in principle, their attitude changes when they look at their retirement statement every month. The other big change is that we became a country of lawsuits and lawyers. That led to the at-will employee. That means you agree to indentured servitude. Once again, it's about creating jobs at the expense of employee rights.

It's been a long slow process to get where we are. It didn't just happen recently. One law didn't cause it. It's been a series of things. And we all had opportunities to step up and say "no." But we didn't, and that led those with an organized agenda move in. That, in a nutshell, is how we got here.

What you given is a very accurate description of the steady - and very deliberate - shift in the social contract these last 3 decades that allowed the "haves" to hoard for themselves just about all of the added fruits that our society has generated. I seriously doubt whether we became a country of stockholders from choice; I far preferred getting a guaranteed 5% from a bank savings account, which you could do in the '70s, over risking my money on Wall Street. And that's what they are trying to do with Social Security. You are right, we had the chance to say "no", but whenever we did so, our concerns were dismissed by people in politics and the media who thought they knew better. Nobody could have predicted when something like the Occupy movement would take off, but it was a stone cold certainty that it would happen eventually. Among other things, Occupy has exposed a bizarre world in which free speech expressed by the common people peaceably assembling is less free than free speech expressed by corrupt oligarchs showering corrupt politicians with unlimited amounts of money.

This is an interesting, intelligent discussion with very thoughtful postings. But we're starting to veer away from radio here. So, lest this be taken "outside" by the board moderators, let's return this thread to the topic of radio.

 

[therealjm12]

Ok, just to make it simple: The subject is the declining state of radio & your opinion. Does anyone here, besides The Big A, disagree that the declining state of radio has been mostly brought about by government deregulation and the big media companies?

 

[TheBigA]

Ok, just to make it simple: The subject is the declining state of radio & your opinion. Does anyone here, besides The Big A, disagree that the declining state of radio has been mostly brought about by government deregulation and the big media companies?

As I said at the start of this thread, I disagree with the entire premise. It's negative and defeatist.

Government deregulation and big media companies aren't going away. Deal with it. I learned a long time ago that holding ones breath and stomping ones feet isn't very productive.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Failing to protest and make your voice heard by the people who are supposed to be looking out for the best interests of the populace is hardly "negative and defeatest". Big government, and big media companies respond when there's enough pressure exerted - either economically or in the court of public opinion. It nobody cries "foul", they'll just continue to ignore the rights of others, and do what is economically expedient for a small number of people.

Holding one's breath, and stomping one's feet may not be productive, but holding our representatives accountable and voting with our feet by failing to support bad programming in favor of more enlightened operators certainly is.

 

[therealjm12]

The Big A is missing my point. It is our opinion about the decline of radio. I think most people here agree with my statement. Saying otherwise doesn't make it right. And I, for one, am dealing with it, thank you. Doesn't mean I have to like it. The Big A has obviously prospered under the new order. I hate to think how many bodies he's stepped on to get to the top.

I have worked for the biggies and will say there are a couple good things about their management. There's always toilet paper
and I never had to race my co-worked to the bank on payday to cash my check. I guess enough good things said.

 

[Jeff Michaels]

I am glad many have responded to this. I still maintain that I could fix a station or many if given the chance. There are many ways to do it and I believe I have what it takes to succeed!

 

[TheBigA]

The Big A is missing my point. It is our opinion about the decline of radio. I think most people here agree with my statement.

I'm sure they do. And some of them aren't in radio any more. As one who's still in it, I've learned how to adjust to the changes, and continue to keep quality high.

 

[TheBigA]

It nobody cries "foul", they'll just continue to ignore the rights of others, and do what is economically expedient for a small number of people.

Right, so people cried foul and got the government to create non-commercial broadcasting. The purpose was to take a small portion of the media out of the hands of profit-making companies. Which a group of citizens want to defund. That's what you get from the court of public opinion. One group hates corporations, the other group hates non-profits. Very productive.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Non-commercial broadcasting has nothing to do with regulating corporations who are LICENSED - not sold or given - a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that belongs to the people of the United States. Let's not pretend we're naive here. Lowry Mays and others have done their damndest to reduce restrictions on their attempt to create de facto monopolies in radio markets. The Telecom Act of 1996 covered a lot of ground. Radio and TV broadcasting were a small portion of what was revised, but both have become far less competitive under the revised provisions on ownership. Reduced competition has led to a reduction in both the quality of programming, and the amount of content offered.

One view is that consumers were lured away by new media. Another view is that consumers sought out new media because old media essentially became contemptuous of consumers and reduced the quality of their programming. Either way, it's pretty hard to argue that less is being spent on content creation now than was being spend 20 years ago, 10 years ago, or even 5 years ago. And that number continues to drop. If you contrast that with the movie industry - declared dead multiple times over the last half century, you'll find that the movie industry put MORE money into content, and has reaped ever greater profits over the same time period. And movies are a much older medium than radio.

 

[Mike Sheridan]

The Big A is missing my point. It is our opinion about the decline of radio. I think most people here agree with my statement.

I'm sure they do. And some of them aren't in radio any more. As one who's still in it, I've learned how to adjust to the changes, and continue to keep quality high.

This depends on what you call quality. What I have seen is a lack of concern about what goes on the air. Voicetracks that don't run all evening and nobody cares enough to do anything. Now move 1 spot to another break and all hell breaks loose!

 

[Mike Sheridan]

There are those who will say everything is fine and bury their heads in the sand.

 

[TheBigA]

There are those who will say everything is fine and bury their heads in the sand.

And there are those who just like to complain all the time.

 

[TheBigA]

Non-commercial broadcasting has nothing to do with regulating corporations who are LICENSED - not sold or given - a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that belongs to the people of the United States.

So why are those whose job it is to regulate not doing so? Don't say they were bribed, because I'll ask for proof. A broadcasting license is like a drivers license. You operate your car legally, and you're permitted to use the highways. Same with broadcasting. Don't make it more complicated than it is...it's simply a use permit.

The point is that non-commercial radio was created specifically to address the corporatization of broadcasting in the 60s. It got the support of the broadcasting companies and the NAB because it would take the heat off them. Now the public is having second thoughts.