As I follow all the "what can we do to retool?" discussions about the post office ... I'm struck by the similarities between challenges faced by radio and the challenges faced by the Post Office. Both seem to be "stuck" on a model established years ago and facing problems because the people in the industry keep trying to keep those old rules & ideas alive. If the Post Office took more of a "how do we fit in society in light of email, UPS/FedEx, online commerce, etc." they would probably have a better shot at creative ideas to keep the model alive. (Not to mention other ideas such as boosting bulk mail rates for commercial purposes, etc. -- or having more creative ideas than the union saying "let's do a marketing campaign"!!). First thing I'd be evaluating in the post office model is whether it makes sense to drop to a 3-day delivery (M-W-F), and give up high-priority shipping to FedEx/UPS -- or continue the "Express Mail" concept if the USPS wants to be a player in the rapid-turnaround arena.
In radio's case...of course it bit its own butt by demanding such consolidation that station values became unrealistic. Consolidation was a good CONCEPT ... but taken beyond a degree of "being reasonable" is what screwed the pooch by creating the opportunity to incur debt that would be impossible to repay. Having one operation do four or six stations makes sense...though we are now at the point where it is next generation and into the "how do we create national networks with minimal/no local effort". Certainly the FCC will never bring the horse back into the barn by auditing the amount of local concent out there. But I do so see some opportunities for market quotas based on market size -- where perhaps a target of "x" locally-programmed stations (in top 50) or "y" locally-programmed stations (markets below that, for example) might make sense -- and other licenses can be awarded as network repeaters up to a max per market. With that quota system you'd at least run the chance that they could all be viable in their own way -- and yet the community still has a choice between wall/wall automation in various formats and some local presence for coverage and emergency preparedness (mostly wx).
In both cases...the issue is that demand has dropped (despite what Bob Pittman tries to tell us). Yet neither service seems inclined to respond to changing demand -- they just keep messing with variables and wonder where it has gone.
In radio's case...of course it bit its own butt by demanding such consolidation that station values became unrealistic. Consolidation was a good CONCEPT ... but taken beyond a degree of "being reasonable" is what screwed the pooch by creating the opportunity to incur debt that would be impossible to repay. Having one operation do four or six stations makes sense...though we are now at the point where it is next generation and into the "how do we create national networks with minimal/no local effort". Certainly the FCC will never bring the horse back into the barn by auditing the amount of local concent out there. But I do so see some opportunities for market quotas based on market size -- where perhaps a target of "x" locally-programmed stations (in top 50) or "y" locally-programmed stations (markets below that, for example) might make sense -- and other licenses can be awarded as network repeaters up to a max per market. With that quota system you'd at least run the chance that they could all be viable in their own way -- and yet the community still has a choice between wall/wall automation in various formats and some local presence for coverage and emergency preparedness (mostly wx).
In both cases...the issue is that demand has dropped (despite what Bob Pittman tries to tell us). Yet neither service seems inclined to respond to changing demand -- they just keep messing with variables and wonder where it has gone.
