indystorm said:I'd say that anything Clear Channel has done is the biggest failure, not only in Boston, but America as a whole.
What a terrible company. It has destroyed radio as we once knew it.
Talk to anybody who's worked in the radio biz, and they will say the same thing. Unless you are one of the poor unfortunate souls who happens to work for these scum bags.
And who owns Boston's number one station? Three of the five top-rated stations in New York? The top three stations in LA? The top two stations in Chicago? Need I go on?
You may not like what CC does and how they treat their employees. I don't particularly care for what they do. But the common denominator has always been that there are more Passives than Actives when it comes to music, and all the Passives want is to hear their favorite songs. Which is exactly what Clear Channel stations do with a vengeance and that's why they're so successful.
And since when was radio so uniformly wonderful? Most of the complaints about radio have been around long before deregulation and go back to the 70s when the "free form" formats that were turning off rock Passives were replaced by Allen Shaw and Lee Abrams and their imitators' AOR formats that appealed to rock Passives because it played their favorite songs while giving them enough new music close to what they already liked so they could tolerate it. The only difference now is that there are satellite and online alternatives. And note with satellite that the programming philosophy that appealed to Actives (Abrams with XM, in his attempt at penance for his 70s and 80s sins) was replaced at the merged satellite radio system with a philosophy that appealed to Passives (Karmazin and Sirius). And I suspect that the most streamed Internet stations are those stations that are the formats that are the most mainstream/Passive-friendly, with a core of favorite songs along with a few obscure cuts.