BRNout said:12 In a Row said:quote-"This is Clear Channel's way of saving money and also attracting national advertisers."
Hold on a second.
You're running a business. You have a the answer to save money, make MORE money and chances are,
more listeners. Where's the downside?
Are you going to tell your investors, I had a chance bring more listeners and money to our company, but I turned it down.
I think keeping Lucy LiveNLocal talking about the weather in Natick is the answer.
The Donald would like to see you in the board room.
The airwaves are public property. One could make the argument that Clear Channel is not serving the audience that it's supposed to by yanking all local programming and airing out-of-date syndicated shows in their place. I'd love to hear your argument that this move actually represents an IMPROVEMENT in Kiss 108's programming.
Conversely, all I see is how it maximizes profit. Stretch that concept to its logical conclusion and you'll have NO local programming whatsoever. All you'll have is a hodgepodge of bird feed and poor examples of a few formats. Like what has happened in far too many small markets. As it is, very few stations offer anything other than mindless chatter during morning drive. Do we need this all day? Apparently, someone thinks that we do - or that they do (for the sake of making an extra $1.50). At the minimum, this is a bad move for the listener and it's the continuation of a bad trend for anyone employed in the radio business (except the CEO).
The most profitable thing of all would be to run a national network of one program that's the same on all stations. No local content. No pesky newsreaders or traffic reporters to pay $6/hour. Just a bunch of repeaters like those religious zealots from Twin Falls, Idaho do. Is that really what you're advocating here? Because this is yet another step in that direction.
Though I am not a fan of big government, I'm beginning to think that holders of a broadcast license should be held to some minimum level of responsibility to the audiences that they are supposed to serve. Remember, Clear Channel may own the station - but WE own the frequency. Or, we're supposed to. And, I am also beginning to think that we're approaching the tipping point where something needs to happen. There's too little local programming - everywhere. And, it's happened so gradually that few have noticed how different radio is from what it was 25 years ago.
I'm not aware of ANYONE in Boston begging to hear scraps of Seacrest's LA morning show. Or in Chicago. Or in Philly. Yet all three markets (and others) are getting it anyway. Whether you like it or not. In Boston, at least, they'll probably get away with it because there's nowhere else for the CHR listener to turn. Elsewhere, I hope Clear Channel gets schlocked for this cheapa$$ move.
Take that argument to the F.C.C.
Obviously you've never run a business. Maximize your profits IS goal 1.
Business (any business) is in the business to make money, period. They don't, we're all out of work.
I'll take mindless chatter over the same 300 songs over and over.
How is this a bad move for the listener? Maybe for you, not for others.
I don't see where switching one program for another is not serving the public interest.
On the TV side, you have on average 6 hours a day, Mon-Fri of "local" programming, the rest is national or syndicated.
Less local on the weekends.
Lets see what the ratings bring before crying foul.
quote-WE own the frequency. Or, we're supposed to.
Taking this comment to the wild extreme, WE own The White House, or we're supposed to.
How come I can't stay there when I'm in Washington?
I appreciate the argument of saving jobs, but time moves on in this and many more industries.