DogEStyle said:
Nobody's complaining about companies owning several station. You have missed my point. It is when groups program to "flank and augment" that is harming the industry.
Every station should be programed to be the best station in the market, period. Having a flanker station is a waste and that tells it's employees that they do not count as much as the next station in the group.
It's poor radio and the listeners suffer.
I understand your point. You said that "each station should be programmed to be the best station that it can be." But what you are saying is that each station should be programmed independant of strategic regard for the other station's in a cluster. Ultimately, that works out to a non-focussed cluster and a lower profit margin.
Within a corporate entity, each asset has to be managed and 'focussed' in a way so as to bring the maximum return for the good of the entity as a whole.
So I would argue that this is what Cox is doing. You seem to imply that a flanker station is a 'throwaway' item to these companies. But within the overall profit philosophy of a company, a flanker is not a throw away. It's simply fulfilling the finely focussed purpose for which it was created. In truth, the flankers are just as important as the others in the group.
Now, as far as making employees who are working for a flanker 'feel not as important'; I think that if a company clearly communicates it's vision and strategy to it's staffers, this isnt a problem. I, for one, have worked for flankers. And the company I was with made it clear to us that we were highly valued and explained to us clearly our purpose within the group. We knew our purpose going in. And we were fine with it.
If morale is low in any radio staff, flanker or not, it's usually a result of bad management. In most cases this is true, anyway. I've found that if one's place within a company is clearly and hoestly communicated to them upon arrival, there usually isn't a problem.So many times it comes down to clear communication between management and staff. And in so many cases, the communication skills of managers are sorely lacking.
As far as being 'bad for the industry', I think that depends on which side of the industry you're on. If you're on a winning team, then it's "good for the industry." If you're on a team that is being beaten, then it's "bad for the industry."
