Boycotting Clear Channel is too little, too late

[MickJ]

Re: A Message to Stockholders

I never said the CCU was traded ont he NASDAQ. I simply gave an example of how the composite of 3000 stocks on the NASDAQ was off in a very similar proportion to CCU (wherever it trades).

NASDAQ is the home of most of the "dot bomb" stocks that crashed harder and faster than most so the comparison between NASDAQ and CCU was a little odd.

In other words, judging companies entirely by the market is not a perfect metric.

I would think that too obvious to even state. I thought CCU was overvalued when it was near $40 (and it never recovered) and I wouldn't give you much of anything for the satellite stocks.

 

[Chuck]

It's simple. If you bought CC at its high, and you want out today, you have lost money....

 

[MickJ]

It's simple. If you bought CC at its high, and you want out today, you have lost money....

Oh, yeah. Buy low sell high. I'm dyslexic and sometimes it causes me to get that backwards and lose money.

 

[SirRoxalot]

The point is that the controlling Mays family, by taking CC private, is depriving other stockholders of any hope that the stock will recover to previous levels, or even reach the valuation of several analysts who say that the stock should be trading around $40.00/share. The Mays family started with a couple of Texas radio stations, and built an empire on other people's money. Now, they're forcing the sale to private interests, and a lot of people who helped create the empire are going to lose serious money as a thank you for their faith in the Mays family.

Let's hope investors remember this when CC comes back with an IPO in a few years, after they've written off a lot of bad debt and damaged a lot of radio stations in the process.

 

[LeChat]

Interesting that any discussion of CC veers off into how much the stock is worth rather than the effect on radio in general. But, I gather, making money, rather than radio, was always the prime motivation that drove CC in the first place. I suppose we will all have to wait and see what the Mays family will do in the future make achieve their main goal, which, I gather, is to make more money. I think we can safely assume that there is more money to be made and that the Mays family will make either in terrestrial or satellite communication.

 

[MickJ]

The point is that the controlling Mays family, by taking CC private, is depriving other stockholders of any hope that the stock will recover to previous levels, or even reach the valuation of several analysts who say that the stock should be trading around $40.00/share. The Mays family started with a couple of Texas radio stations, and built an empire on other people's money. Now, they're forcing the sale to private interests, and a lot of people who helped create the empire are going to lose serious money as a thank you for their faith in the Mays family.

"Forcing the sale"? They don't own enough of the stock to force anything. All they could do is put it up for sale and see what offers came along. If the majority of the shareholders were to refuse to tender their shares, it wouldn't happen. Believe me, if I were foolish enough to have owned stock, I'd welcome the buyout. The stock is going nowhere.

 

[BarneyPip]

If there's anything that depresses me about working in radio, it's that it is so backward looking instead of forward looking. The theme of this thread, that Clear Channel is a monster gobbling everything in sight and that deregulation destroyed radio is by now a cliche.

I don't see it that way.

I worked for Clear Channel and hated the entire experience but somehow I don't blame Clear Channel at all. Clear Channel is like every other company, it's made up of people. Some are good and some are horrible.

Things change and the media landscape changed. Life goes on. Adapt or die. You're engaging in a pointless and meaningless boycott of Clear Channel? How sad.

Bingo. Salty Dog is my kind of broadcaster! In the early 60s, people in radio lamented the transition from the smorgasbord of dramas, news, etc. to more formatted presentation of standards and the advent of disc jockeys (listen to to old tapes of WAKE Atlanta, WBT Charlotte, WBBM and WGN Chicago, etc.). Then Bill Drake emerged from the pack with Boss radio. Huge shift. Then along came creative programmers who took music radio past the Boss phase -- Rick Sklar, Buzz Bennet, and many others. And they stood on the shoulders of great talent who made their ideas come to life. Then along came FM!! People like Allen Shaw, Scott Muni, and others seized on it and developed it. The advent of tightly formatted A/C around 1980 ushered in liner jocks and was really bland and not much fun. Some programmers and air talent transcended it and put great radio stations on the air (Scott Shannon comes to mind) -- not by lamenting and hand-wringing about it, but by developing a vision and a game plan to realize their vision...and voila! More magic.

Yeah -- maybe, in a general sense, ClearChannel has made much of radio less fun from a creative standpoint. Still, within ClearChannel, there are standout programmers, talent, managers, marketers, stations. There are jocks who voice track other markets who measure their effectiveness by how fast and efficiently they can voicetrack a five-hour shift. But there are others who get to know the markets, find creative ways to do phoners, and create theater of the mind. Regrettably, some very talented and dedicated people are losing their jobs in the midst of ClearChannel's current machinations. The good ones will find work again.

And that's the point, really. It's a choice: spend precious time and emotional energy lamenting...or stand up and stand out. Develop a vision for what you hear and "see" as radio's next great products and opportunities. Some possibilities -- learn everything and anything you can about HD and network with the ones making it happen right now. Read some of the other posts and you'll see high-powered people lamenting the content on HD. An opportunity? Land a programming or on-air job in a market where ClearChannel is and kick 'em in the teeth. Out program 'em, out talent-develop 'em, out community-involve 'em, out remote 'em, out stunt 'em. Beat 'em.

Or, land a job with ClearChannel. They are an amazing success story. Take the tools that are made available to you and shine. The control room is the same size as everywhere else. Make the best possible use of the budget made available to you. Allocate in a way that makes your station hum. Don't think it's possible? Remember stations like WZYQ in Frederick, Maryland. Small market, shoe string budgets, put perennially found ways to sound amazing and attract amazing people. What's the worst that can happen? They cost-cut you out of the picture anyway? Then take your amazing sound and blow some other company away. Amazingly, it still happens.

While you're busy boycotting, I'm gonna be busy figuring out how to stand out. Anybody else?

 

[gr8oldies]

Barney. very well said! You da man!

 

[SirRoxalot]

Standing Up

Barney, just where are new people supposed to learn how to "stand up and stand out" when voicetracking and syndication are depriving them of a job and a chance to learn?

You're "I've got mine" attitude doesn't bode well for the future of the radio business. Look around you. What's the percentage of air personalities who are under the age of 30? Young people who may have been interested in radio look at the pay scale, and the scarcity of job openings, and look elsewhere.

As far as "Clear Channel is an amazing success story" is concerned, the amazing part is that you can't see that Clear Channel has failed miserably in many markets, and has seriously damaged radio as a business by gutting stations of personnel and keeping pay scales at 1980s levels through fear and intimidation.

They built a pyramid scheme that rewarded those who got in early, and is about to screw people who invested in their promises when their stock was trading well above today's level. Those are the people who financed Clear Channel's expansion. Their return is "Thanks, but we've got controlling interest, and we're going private". WHY are they going private? Because they're "an amazing success story"? Or because they have to clean up their mess (selling small market radio stations en masse) and they prefer to do it without public scrutiny.

Work for Clear Channel? Let's hope I never get that desperate. My greatest fear is that too many other broadcasting companies out there will look at Clear Channel as a success and become "Clear Channel Light".

Obviously, you've been drinking deeply of the Clear Channel Kool-Aid. Put down the cup and THINK about it. You KNOW that they've been bad for radio, even if they've been good for you personally.

 

[DavidEduardo]

Re: Standing Up

They built a pyramid scheme that rewarded those who got in early, and is about to screw people who invested in their promises when their stock was trading well above today's level. Those are the people who financed Clear Channel's expansion.

Not true. Clear Channel stock was in the $30's and $40's in the 1996 to 1998 period when AM/FM and JACOR were merged into Clear. Clear did not issue stock at the high of $85.49 in January of 200, as most of the consolidation deals had been made two to 4 years prior. Anyone who bought at that level bought on the market from another shareholder in a normal trade that benefits the traded company not even 1%. Once shares are issued, they are traded between sharholders, and do not benfit the company at all....

Their return is "Thanks, but we've got controlling interest, and we're going private".

The board of directors unanimously voted to go private because Wall Street was undervaluing radio companies and they felt the shareholdrs would benefit more from a buyout at a higer price. Based on the $29 to $30 range ñprior to the announcement, shareholders will get about a 25% to 30% premium over the market value up to that point. That is a good deal.

WHY are they going private? Because they're "an amazing success story"? Or because they have to clean up their mess (selling small market radio stations en masse) and they prefer to do it without public scrutiny.

They are going private because busninesses with strong cash flow and profits are valued more highly by private capital than the market. There have been, per Business Week, around $280 billion in proivate capital buyouts this year, because slower growth income producers are disconuted by the market, but whort much more to private capital.

Work for Clear Channel? Let's hope I never get that desperate. My greatest fear is that too many other broadcasting companies out there will look at Clear Channel as a success and become "Clear Channel Light".

Clear is definitely a success. It is immensely profitable, and they have just engineered a very favorable buyout. By any standard of business, that is defintely success.

Obviously, you've been drinking deeply of the Clear Channel Kool-Aid. Put down the cup and THINK about it. You KNOW that they've been bad for radio, even if they've been good for you personally.

Consolidation may have negative aspects, but blaming Clear for consolidation is like blaming a sportscaster for a team's loss!

 

[BarneyPip]

Sorry SirRoxaLot -- but I'm not drinking deeply of anybody's Kool-Aid. I've been a free agent for 12 years now -- and none of those for ClearChannel.

Where are new people supposed to learn how "stand up and stand out"? The same way we've been doing it for years: you take a job board-opping syndication. 25 years ago, it was running AT40 or Bob Dearborn overnight for minimum wage. Sure, today you don't need anyone in the station -- but have you looked at AllAccess, RadioOnline and other trade sites lately? There are jobs all over the place. Financially rewarding? No. Glamorous? No. But only people smokin' funny stuff think that's new. It's always been that way. So, back to your question: where? Today, the jobs are in Elko, Nevada...or this one: "I have several openings at our small-ER cluster of 6. Any combination of PD, mornings Prod. Current format/market unimportant. Send resume, audio and 2-sentence, or less, answer to this question “What makes for a creative environment?” Send to [email protected]"...or board-op for Polka (yes, Polka) WPNA in suburban-Chicago Oak Park...or Myrtle Beach...Long Island...Springfield, IL...Bath, NY...Portland, ME. For a lot of these -- yep, the pay is lousy and you'd probably have to sell cars, tend bar, find a roommate, etc. to make it work. No different than 25 or 50 years ago. Same drill -- any place with a dial, slide pot, mic, NextGen, ProTools, etc. You put in twice as many hours as you're getting paid for...find a mentor...become invaluable...learn everything you can...live and breathe it. Send your stuff out a-l-l the time, get the next better-paying job. Keep at it. No different than 25 or 50 years ago.

Not sure how you come to an "I've got mine" conclusion from my remarks. I don't even know what that means. My what? The purpose of my remarks is to suggest that you can get yours. It comes down to three things: focus, focus, and focus. I don't know the percentage of air personalities under the age of 30. I do know that the pay scale has been causing people to look elsewhere for a very long time. That isn't new. The question is do you want it bad enough that you'll make it work somehow until you get good enough to make it financially rewarding.

Here's the Kool-Aid I'm drinking regarding ClearChannel as a success story: Lowry Mays built a company that just sold (in theory) for around $19 billion, starting with one station in San Antonio, Texas, once upon a time. How is that not an amazing success story? It may not be my success story, or yours, but guaran-damn-teed that there's a lot to learn from Mays' odyssey. Have you studied how he went about building ClearChannel? Have you determined who in radio -- ClearChannel or otherwise -- you admire, respect, can learn from, and found a way to start a relationship with those people?

And sorry, again. I don't buy the fear/intimidation/conspiracy stories. Yeah -- it's been a weird 12 years or so in radio. CC has certainly had a grip on a huge portion of the marketplace. But not an exclusive group. Afraid? Intimidated? Don't work for 'em. Why would you choose to be afraid and intimidated? This isn't Red China.

If you're young and want to make decent dollars -- you can sell pharmaceuticals, be an accountant, a nurse (they're in hot demand and commanding big dollars), an engineer. Just like any other time in broadcasting history. But if you want to -- have to -- dream of -- being in radio, then just go do it. Go sound great for minimum wage in some little market that has never heard of ClearChannel. Learn. Grow. Network like crazy. Hell -- become the best voicetracker the business has ever seen while you're at it. Or do you think it was easier/more lucrative in 1980?

BTW -- as of this writing -- I've never received one thin dime from ClearChannel in my entire life. Doesn't mean I won't someday, but your assumptions don't hunt.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Barney & David, we obviously disagree over Clear Channel's effect on broadcasting. As far as a stock's price not affecting the value of the company, tell that to the people who loaned Clear Channel money for further purchases.

Lowry Mays built a company on other people's money. The buyout will hurt some investors, and not people who got in early. Guess who controls the Board of Directors? The buyout has NOTHING to do with benefitting shareholders. It has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that Clear Channel's record as a management company is not nearly as strong as their record as a broadcast realestate dealer. They need to divest for several reasons - not the least of which is an attempt to get the FCC to allow further consolidation in larger markets. Dropping small markets, where their model has failed miserably, would punish their stock price, and leave the management open to stockholder questions. Going private eliminates the stockholder questions, and lets them restructure with far less government oversight. In short, this is a corporate version of their "right-sizing" model.

From my vantage point, Clear Channel has been bad for radio as an industry. Your view is obviously different. So be it.

 

[DavidEduardo]

Barney & David, we obviously disagree over Clear Channel's effect on broadcasting. As far as a stock's price not affecting the value of the company, tell that to the people who loaned Clear Channel money for further purchases.

Loans are based on interest rates and asset value, just like buying a house. Loans are not based on stock price... As long as the interest and the required principal is paid, the only other issues are coventants such as a debt to equity ration or some other operating metric. Usually, such are applied to keep a borrower from getting to far in debt.

Lowry Mays built a company on other people's money.

That is the way nearly all business is sgtarted and grown: use someone else's money. The idea is that you could borrow money at, say, 6% to 7% and have and ROI of 10% or better, and you keep the spread, and use it to pay down principal. With a company like Clear, they have huge cash flow, and can make debt service easily.

In fact, Clear has a better debt to equity ratio than General Electric! Debt is how companies grow, using lower costing money to enter higher margin businesses.

The buyout will hurt some investors, and not people who got in early.

You could say the same for anyone who has an investment that goes down for a while. Microsoft is nearly 50% below its peak, and that is a fine, cash-rich, highly profitable business.

Guess who controls the Board of Directors? The buyout has NOTHING to do with benefitting shareholders. It has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that Clear Channel's record as a management company is not nearly as strong as their record as a broadcast realestate dealer.

The Mays' do not control the board. The Mays and Red Coombs, the founders, do not. The board is mostly outside parties, and after the sale, the main investment bankers will control the board. They will keep the Mays on as management, since the company is doing so well on operations.

They need to divest for several reasons

The Mays and Mr Cobs, per reports, will continue as minority investors. They have no reason to divest.

- not the least of which is an attempt to get the FCC to allow further consolidation in larger markets. Dropping small markets, where their model has failed miserably,

The small markets have not failed. They simply produce so little revenue and income,, the capital can be better used elsewhere, and the amount of management time spent on Mankato can be diverted to larger markets. 30% of all radio revenue is in the top 10 markets alone. Less than 10% of Clear's revenue is in markets #100 and below.

would punish their stock price, and leave the management open to stockholder questions. Going private eliminates the stockholder questions, and lets them restructure with far less government oversight. In short, this is a corporate version of their "right-sizing" model.

They save lots of money by being private, mostly due to the SOX expenses. And they get better current value for the shareholders, since the market has punished radio so that the P/E multiples are very, very good. In fact, selling the small markets would probably kick up the stock price, as they will get high prices and be able to buy down remaining debt.

 

[Anyacat]

I think we can all agree that Clear Channel is a well run company that has provided an ample living for the Mays family and those investors who made money.

But the issue of why consolidation has been bad for radio is once against lost. But then, as consolidation's major champion David Eduardo has noted on more than one occasion, radio is there to make somebody rich, whether it's CC or Westinghouse or Chase and Disney. Perhaps consolidationists will be successful this time in eradicated any of the tiresome that hamper their ability to make even more money by the FCC.

We know, for example, that consolidation has resulted in fewer jobs in radio. Mr. Eduardo doesn't care about that because he's employed and if he has his why should be be concerned about others? Consolidation is bad news when it comes to news and entertainment--both of which were once used as a vehicle to gain public attention for advertisers. Consolidation means the homogenization of news and entertainment, while increasing profit margins, which is a good thing according to Mr. Eduardo. The elimination of news departments from local markets means the loss of local coverage, and Mr. Eduardo has made his antipathy to news known on these boards. Large corporations such as CC don't buy up smaller stations to improve journalistic standards. They do it to make money and if they cannot sell the naming rights to their newsrooms as they did in Milwaukee, they will jettison local coverage in favor of something less expensive.

Consolidation has been bad for radio on a number of levels but it has provided a great deal of money to investors. I repeat: This discussion did not begin with the premise that CC is a poorly run company or that it failed to provide an ample income to its investors. Rather, consolidation has been bad news for the public, and CC, as a consolidation leader, is the worst offender. People such as Mr. Eduardo who have benefited greatly from consolidation which have you believe that consolidation has been the best thing to happen to radio since Marconi. But what he's really saying is what we all know, consolidation has made some people very rich and in that it has been very successful. But are the public airwaves are there to be used to enrich corporations or is there some other purpose?

 

[DavidEduardo]

But the issue of why consolidation has been bad for radio is once against lost. But then, as consolidation's major champion David Eduardo has noted on more than one occasion, radio is there to make somebody rich, whether it's CC or Westinghouse or Chase and Disney. Perhaps consolidationists will be successful this time in eradicated any of the tiresome that hamper their ability to make even more money by the FCC.

The FCC has given too many licences. Pre-consolidation, half of US stations were not profitable. Unprofitable stations do not serve audiences or owners well. In fact, the effectos of Docket 80-90 in many smaller markets was to make radio so unprofitable that stations cut way back on local news and community service as they could not afford it at all. Markets that had two or three stations suddenly had six or seven, and there was no more revenue...

We know, for example, that consolidation has resulted in fewer jobs in radio..

US radio employment is up. Technology has reduced the need for engineers and some on air positions (I pause to mention that the highest percentag of automated, voice traced stations was in the 70's, not today). The growth has been in sales and promotion, not in airstaff.

Mr. Eduardo doesn't care about that because he's employed and if he has his why should be be concerned about others?.

I look at our staff size, and it has grown consistently over the years. So have salaries.

Consolidation is bad news when it comes to news and entertainment--both of which were once used as a vehicle to gain public attention for advertisers. Consolidation means the homogenization of news and entertainment, while increasing profit margins, which is a good thing according to Mr. Eduardo..

My first experience in consolidation was owning a local market cluster that grew to 9 stations, back in the 60's. Consiolidation allowed me to do formats like classical and foreign lang

But the issue of why consolidation has been bad for radio is once against lost. But then, as consolidation's major champion David Eduardo has noted on more than one occasion, radio is there to make somebody rich, whether it's CC or Westinghouse or Chase and Disney. Perhaps consolidationists will be successful this time in eradicated any of the tiresome that hamper their ability to make even more money by the FCC.

The FCC has given too many licences. Pre-consolidation, half of US stations were not profitable. Unprofitable stations do not serve audiences or owners well. In fact, the effectos of Docket 80-90 in many smaller markets was to make radio so unprofitable that stations cut way back on local news and community service as they could not afford it at all. Markets that had two or three stations suddenly had six or seven, and there was no more revenue...

We know, for example, that consolidation has resulted in fewer jobs in radio..

US radio employment is up. Technology has reduced the need for engineers and some on air positions (I pause to mention that the highest percentag of automated, voice traced stations was in the 70's, not today). The growth has been in sales and promotion, not in airstaff.

Mr. Eduardo doesn't care about that because he's employed and if he has his why should be be concerned about others?.

I look at our staff size, and it has grown consistently over the years. So have salaries.

Consolidation is bad news when it comes to news and entertainment--both of which were once used as a vehicle to gain public attention for advertisers. Consolidation means the homogenization of news and entertainment, while increasing profit margins, which is a good thing according to Mr. Eduardo..

My first experience in consolidation was owning a local market cluster that grew to 9 stations, back in the 60's. Consiolidation allowed me to do formats like classical and foreign language. But most of all, it allowed me the luxury of starting from scratch a high power news and talk station, one which no profit was expected of for several years. I could not have done this were I not able to use some of the profits from other stations in my group to finance it.

The elimination of news departments from local markets means the loss of local coverage, and Mr. Eduardo has made his antipathy to news known on these boards.

Huh? I have done #1 news and talk formats in LA, Puerto Rico, Argentina, Ecuador, and even Miami. What I do not agree with is putting news on stations where the listener neither expects nor wants news. That is a disservice.

Consolidation has been bad for radio on a number of levels but it has provided a great deal of money to investors. I repeat: This discussion did not begin with the premise that CC is a poorly run company or that it failed to provide an ample income to its investors. Rather, consolidation has been bad news for the public, and CC, as a consolidation leader, is the worst offender. People such as Mr. Eduardo who have benefited greatly from consolidation which have you believe that consolidation has been the best thing to happen to radio since Marconi. But what he's really saying is what weall know, consolidation has made some people very rich and in that it has been very successful. But are the public airwaves are there to be used to enrich corporations or is there some other purpose?.

In my experience, I see many new formats since consolidation in the US, and more groups being served. I also see news being better done although on fewer stations, resulting in a net improvment in news content. None of this is possible if stations are not profitable.

 

[lash]

David, you continue to live in a fantasy world. Clear Channel and any other company next in line in size have killed the radio industry as we knew it. Consolidation has been the worse mistake in the history of the FCC. Now these idiots in suits want more stations.

 

[grantchester]

If I may chime in....
-David, Clear Channel peaked at $96 in 1999.
-You say half of all stations lost money... that's the same argument L. Lowry Mays made before Congress, when he, as president of the NAB Combined Boards, argued for consolidation. It's bulls**t. Many stations fell short because overleveraged speculators bought up licenses just as the Arizona Waiver allowed small-market stations to move into nearby larger markets.
Before 1975, you could say half of all stations lost money, because up until then, FM was not economically viable. But the argument that radio needed saving by consolidation was, and is specious.
-You talk about past practices and how radio changed, but the bottom line is that local broadcasters served local communities with news, public service, public affairs and promotions.
Those were phased out as consolidation took hold. Mr. Mays likes to brag about WOAI as an all-news station. It's not. They do one minute in most hours outside of morning drive. In the evening and at night, the news comes from KTRH-Houston!
-The consolidation of radio was all about leverage. It gave highly capitalized chains leverage over employees and over advertisers, by reducing alternatives. Competition ended.
-Before 1996, a station spinning out 25% of billing as free cash flow was considered a success. Now, if a station isn't turning 50% free cash flow, it is considered a failure.
-There are not too many stations. Too many small market licenses were moved into nearby large markets.
-Total employment in the radio industry is not up, unless you count non-commercial and religous stations.
-The Clear Channel board has been criticised by analysts for being too close to the Mays family (Lester Randy and Mark are on it, and I think one of his daughters also has a corporate position) and for having too little turnover. Lester always treated the station as his own piggy bank... like the special $3 dollar a share dividend issued when Red wanted to sign David Robinson to the Spurs!
-Those of us who work in the industry have seen the damage done by the Clear Channel model, to news, public affairs, programming, community involvement, and most of all, to the careers of the people who make the money for the corporations. That's what many of us resent. It didn't have to be this way. Now it's too late, the public is finding other alternatives, and the equity markets are hip to the trend... away from big consolidated radio.
g

 

[gr8oldies]

I seriously wonder if those of you who demand a return to radio in 1967 would actually listen to all this news and public affairs programming you demand. I mean, when you're listening to a music station and the mandatory hourly newscast comes on that you would never turn the dial, plug in a CD or switch to sattelite radio. You'd listen to each and every public affairs program. If the CHR had to break format for an hour talk show, you wouldn't complain. Somehow I have my doubts. The mandatory news committments started ending in the late 70s, not 1996. So if we had mom and pop vs. all the other stations, the internet, iPods, and satellite radio, just ow would mom and pop fare, especially with mandatory requirements for programming that listeners had more options than ever to turn off.

 

[Anyacat]

I seriously wonder if those of you who demand a return to radio in 1967 would actually listen to all this news and public affairs programming you demand. I mean, when you're listening to a music station and the mandatory hourly newscast comes on that you would never turn the dial, plug in a CD or switch to sattelite radio. You'd listen to each and every public affairs program. If the CHR had to break format for an hour talk show, you wouldn't complain. Somehow I have my doubts. The mandatory news committments started ending in the late 70s, not 1996. So if we had mom and pop vs. all the other stations, the internet, iPods, and satellite radio, just ow would mom and pop fare, especially with mandatory requirements for programming that listeners had more options than ever to turn off.

I don't see anyone demanding a return to radio in 1967 and I also don't believe that just because you find public affairs tiresome, other people would agree. I don't turn the dial when the news comes on, but I am sure there are people who do. However, this discussion is really about corporate radio, which became a real problem in 1996 not 1967 or 1975. There has been a lost of localism, which you believe is good for radio, but other people disagree. Large corporations are more concerned with profits than with programming. What that means is that community wants and needs are ignored in favor of a target audience. Clearly, you don't see that as a problem, but some people believe the lack of diversity is a serious problem. Consolidation has virtually eliminated the coverage of local news and community issues. Clearly, you do not think this is a great loss--again, others who would disagree.

No one has suggested that money should not be made in radio. Rather, the suggestion is that programming should not suffer as a result of the need for greater profits.

According to a 2006 study conducted by the future of Music Coalition (http://www.futureofmusic.org/news/PRemploymenteffects06.cfm) consolidation has reduced wages (but not for the "suits") as well as the number of jobs in radio. How anyone can claim that consolidation, which depends on downsizing for financial growth, increases job opportunities is beyond me. The whole point of consolidation is to have fewer people do more than one job in the cheapest way possible.

 

[DavidEduardo]

According to a 2006 study conducted by the future of Music Coalition (http://www.futureofmusic.org/news/PRemploymenteffects06.cfm) consolidation has reduced wages (but not for the "suits") as well as the number of jobs in radio. How anyone can claim that consolidation, which depends on downsizing for financial growth, increases job opportunities is beyond me. The whole point of consolidation is to have fewer people do more than one job in the cheapest way possible.

The point of consolidation, as proven for over 50 years, is to assemble groups of stations that are competitive with other media. A secondary goal is to achieve a size which allows companies to attract and hold good management and talent. Further, consolidation makes radio attractive to lenders, who were scared by the vulnerability of radio to a problem of one major station in a group in the 7/7 days.

Outdoor has no "board cap" nor does cable have a "channel cap." Daily newspapers enjoy near monopolies in most areas. Radio, pre-consolidation, was a business that could neither afford much in the way of employee benefits (due to the wider problem that afflicts all small businesses in this area) and at the same time, half of US stations were profitless (go back to Broadcasting Yearbook issues in the mid to late 50's and look for the FCC financial report... most stations did not make money then, either).

In the past, every operator wanted "in" to the revenue of the big formats, like AC or Country (where applicable) and so on. Today, clusters strive for a spectrum of formats, not just a win in one major format.

As to jobs, keep in mind that the biggest losses in radio employment came in the 70's as automation became enormously prevalent, new technologies and hardware made transmitter engineers unnecessary and reduced the need for engineering overall. By the end of the 70's, board ops for live talent were essentially a thing of the past, and computers like the IBM 33 and 34 had eliminated the need for huge traffic departments. PCs in the 80's eliminated the need for secretarial help, and at many stations, for sales assistants.

On the other hand, as cable began selling local spots and newspapers added every kind of supplement and outdoor has grown, radio has had to expand the sales staff to give each client the time needed and to better compete for the available ad dollars. Inlarger markets, in the 60's the promotion department was some guy who handed out bumper stickers. Today, you will see fleets of vans doing station and client promotions 7 days a week, with a dedicated promotion staff... jobs that did not exist in the past.

Somebody mentioned that we no longer have 10 PM tl 2 AM jocks... and they are right. Over time, the salability of night radio has declined. The total absence of teen dollars has affected contemporary stations the most. The end result is that more money is spent on mornings and less on nights. And the roll out of the PPM in the top 50 markets by 2010 will change that dynamic, making afternoons and mid-days more important than mornings, so we will see further alignment of expenses with revenue opportunities.

No, it's not the 60's any more. Thank goodness.

Blaming consolidation for job loss is ingenuous. Radio, like any mature industry, has changed considerably.