CC seeks 50% relaxing of ownership cap

[ajhenderson]

http://mediachannel.org/blog/node/1277

Seems pretty ridiculous; every other business can adapt to change. Why doesn't Mays mention his use of local sales agreements, LMAs, etc. to "own" more than the cap in a market? As to his claim of 150 sat channels, those include a lot of channels no one cares about. When CC converts all of their stations to HD, they too can have a bluegrass channel.

Besides, call me crazy, but I'm not sure about satradio. High costs for marketing and operations, all while I see Tempe, AZ building a huge citywide wifi network in my backward. For $29/mo, you can go anywhere and use it. Anywhere... like your car? It's a lot cheaper to put deliver audio through the internet than through satellites that require a user-end equipment investment. Of course, the Bay Area has been plotting their rolout for awhile now.

Once we have people driving around with internet radio, they'll be SO much competition than satradio could ever produce. Every stooge has his own internet show. Of course, CC could also beg the FCC to create a new band?

 

[DudeFan]

> http://mediachannel.org/blog/node/1277
>
> Seems pretty ridiculous; every other business can adapt to
> change. Why doesn't Mays mention his use of local sales
> agreements, LMAs, etc. to "own" more than the cap in a
> market? As to his claim of 150 sat channels, those include a
> lot of channels no one cares about. When CC converts all of
> their stations to HD, they too can have a bluegrass channel.
>
>
> Besides, call me crazy, but I'm not sure about satradio.
> High costs for marketing and operations, all while I see
> Tempe, AZ building a huge citywide wifi network in my
> backward. For $29/mo, you can go anywhere and use it.
> Anywhere... like your car? It's a lot cheaper to put deliver
> audio through the internet than through satellites that
> require a user-end equipment investment. Of course, the Bay
> Area has been plotting their rolout for awhile now.
>
> Once we have people driving around with internet radio,
> they'll be SO much competition than satradio could ever
> produce. Every stooge has his own internet show. Of course,
> CC could also beg the FCC to create a new band?
>

This is the same argument they made back a decade ago in order to get the limits changed in the 1996 Act. Listenership is declining because CCU programs boring radio! The solution isn't more stations.. its more compelling programs.

Food comparison: McDonalds is getting its ass handed to them by Burger King, who is perceived to have a tastier burger. Mark May's solution: build more McDonalds!

 

[ajhenderson]

> This is the same argument they made back a decade ago in
> order to get the limits changed in the 1996 Act.
> Listenership is declining because CCU programs boring radio!
> The solution isn't more stations.. its more compelling
> programs.
>
> Food comparison: McDonalds is getting its ass handed to them
> by Burger King, who is perceived to have a tastier burger.
> Mark May's solution: build more McDonalds!

Right... they said they can run 12 stations more efficiently than 8. But if those 4 new stations used to be well-programmed, adding them to CC's cluster will lead to "efficiency" measures like more sat programming, less local connection, dubbed interviews, etc. Not to sound like a socialist, but if you can't make it with eight stations, there are plenty of guys in the business who can't afford to buy one station in the middle of nowhere who could run it well. I understand there's a profit motive, but stations have always been able to meet their payments. Corporate radio's problem is they went to Wall Street to get cash to buy thousands of stations, and now they have a ball-and-chain tied to their leg to deliver the huge profits stockholders desire.

 

[DudeFan]

> Right... they said they can run 12 stations more efficiently
> than 8. But if those 4 new stations used to be
> well-programmed, adding them to CC's cluster will lead to
> "efficiency" measures like more sat programming, less local
> connection, dubbed interviews, etc. Not to sound like a
> socialist, but if you can't make it with eight stations,
> there are plenty of guys in the business who can't afford to
> buy one station in the middle of nowhere who could run it
> well. I understand there's a profit motive, but stations
> have always been able to meet their payments. Corporate
> radio's problem is they went to Wall Street to get cash to
> buy thousands of stations, and now they have a
> ball-and-chain tied to their leg to deliver the huge profits
> stockholders desire.
>

The difficulties radio is having are of its own design. You don't lose listeners if you offer them something interesting, compelling, and entertaining that they can't get anywhere else.

My personal theory is that in the age of consolidation, the real radio winners will be those stations that understand that really digging into the community and super-serving the interests of the local community with local news and community affairs features will always survive and win. Example: WWL New Orleans. But you don't have to be full-service or new/talk to do it. Look at KPIG Monterrey, California. An unbelievably eclectic, non-mainstream music format that wins because they ARE Monterrey.

 

[dbdigital]

> > Right... they said they can run 12 stations more
> efficiently
> > than 8. But if those 4 new stations used to be
> > well-programmed, adding them to CC's cluster will lead to
> > "efficiency" measures like more sat programming, less
> local
> > connection, dubbed interviews, etc. Not to sound like a
> > socialist, but if you can't make it with eight stations,
> > there are plenty of guys in the business who can't afford
> to
> > buy one station in the middle of nowhere who could run it
> > well. I understand there's a profit motive, but stations
> > have always been able to meet their payments. Corporate
> > radio's problem is they went to Wall Street to get cash to
>
> > buy thousands of stations, and now they have a
> > ball-and-chain tied to their leg to deliver the huge
> profits
> > stockholders desire.
> >
>
> The difficulties radio is having are of its own design. You
> don't lose listeners if you offer them something
> interesting, compelling, and entertaining that they can't
> get anywhere else.
>
> My personal theory is that in the age of consolidation, the
> real radio winners will be those stations that understand
> that really digging into the community and super-serving the
> interests of the local community with local news and
> community affairs features will always survive and win.
> Example: WWL New Orleans. But you don't have to be
> full-service or new/talk to do it. Look at KPIG Monterrey,
> California. An unbelievably eclectic, non-mainstream music
> format that wins because they ARE Monterrey.
>
Absolutely! And I hope no one of any importance gave credence to that clown's suggestion.

What Clear Channel and all the other media octupi need to do is get off this radio acquision jones their on and fix the problem, which is mainly themselves. They're destroying radio and the low numbers among younger listeners proves it.

What I'd like to see is for Congress/FCC to establish an "enterprise zone" in which community entreprenuers can start a low power commercial AM station, perhaps in the expanded band (and in the process get rid of the mostly useless TIS stations that currently infest the band). The auction bids would be low with bidding points going to first time and minority owners. The goal would be to create a radio station for under 150K, license and all. Since most of these stations would not be able to afford the exhorbitant costs associated with IBOC, they would be exempted from going digital (but keep the AM stereo requirement for the expanded band).

I feel such a plan could truly reinvigorate local radio, especially for AM.

db

 

[ajhenderson]

> What I'd like to see is for Congress/FCC to establish an
> "enterprise zone" in which community entreprenuers can start
> a low power commercial AM station, perhaps in the expanded
> band (and in the process get rid of the mostly useless TIS
> stations that currently infest the band). The auction bids
> would be low with bidding points going to first time and
> minority owners. The goal would be to create a radio station
> for under 150K, license and all. Since most of these
> stations would not be able to afford the exhorbitant costs
> associated with IBOC, they would be exempted from going
> digital (but keep the AM stereo requirement for the expanded
> band).
>
> I feel such a plan could truly reinvigorate local radio,
> especially for AM.

Yes! I've thought for awhile now that they should have a class of LPFM that would serve the community by presenting some actual local content, be it high school football, etc., and allow them to sell commercials rather than just underwriting. Developing...

 

[thebroker]

Keep in mind that MediaChannel is a wacko organization that would rather see 500 LPFMs in a market than 25 commercially viable frequencies.

I don't like the thought of CC owning more stations either, but you are incorrect in your comments about CC's LMA agreements. A company must be able to legally own a station before being able to LMA it.

 

[Tom_Desmond]

> I don't like the thought of CC owning more stations either,
> but you are incorrect in your comments about CC's LMA
> agreements. A company must be able to legally own a station
> before being able to LMA it.

His information is just a couple years out of date, is all. It used to be allowed for a company to have LMAs in stations that they wouldn't otherwise be able to own. That's how CC was able to own or control 11 stations in the San Diego market at one point (three were LMAs with stations in Mexico).

The FCC cracked down on this two years ago, as I recall.

 

[tpt]

Effective date was this fall. Not only LMA's but also JSA'S are counted against the ownership limits now.

 

[SirRoxalot]

> Effective date was this fall. Not only LMA's but also JSA'S
> are counted against the ownership limits now.

I guess we know why CC wants a relaxation of ownership caps now, huh?

 

[gyrony]

> > This is the same argument they made back a decade ago in
> > order to get the limits changed in the 1996 Act.
> > Listenership is declining because CCU programs boring
> radio!
> > The solution isn't more stations.. its more compelling
> > programs.
>
> Right... they said they can run 12 stations more efficiently
> than 8. But if those 4 new stations used to be
> well-programmed, adding them to CC's cluster will lead to
> "efficiency" measures like more sat programming, less local
> connection, dubbed interviews, etc. Not to sound like a
> socialist, but if you can't make it with eight stations,
> there are plenty of guys in the business who can't afford to
> buy one station in the middle of nowhere who could run it
> well. I understand there's a profit motive, but stations
> have always been able to meet their payments. Corporate
> radio's problem is they went to Wall Street to get cash to
> buy thousands of stations, and now they have a
> ball-and-chain tied to their leg to deliver the huge profits
> stockholders desire.

From what I understand from my Cheapchannel insider here in PHX once they finish the construction on their new group facility and move their 8 stations in from the three locations they currently occupy, there will be some "staff adjustments". In other words, from 10p-5a one operator monitoring all 8.
Voicetrackcannedprogramming heaven!
They better hope nothing breaks overnight, or their op can relay an amber alert on all 8 in under 15 minutes before the EAS boxes start auto-forwarding.

-30-