New Study: Regulation Yes, Crossownership Yes

[smedge2006]

Rochester Institute of Technology study calls for more regulation -- but not of crossownership:

http://newswire.ascribe.org/cgi-bin/behold.pl?ascribeid=20090206.100027&time=11%2046%20PST&year=2009&public=0

 

[TexasTom]

The key conclusion from that report is in these words:

To benefit local radio and the communities it serves, Saffran suggests reversing the federal ban on newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership - a proposal that could seem at first counterproductive, he concedes. However, Saffran supports tying the policy to stricter local and national radio ownership caps.

And I largely agree with their conclusion. The problem isn't with newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership, but rather with allowing companies to own too many stations. Clear Channel, CBS, etc wouldn't be able to get away with their dreary program offerings if they weren't allowed to own five FM stations each in most of the major markets -- break these groups up, and radio stations will be back to fighting it out for listeners in a highly competitive radio market, just as was once the case.

 

[TheBigA]

Clear Channel, CBS, etc wouldn't be able to get away with their dreary program offerings if they weren't allowed to own five FM stations each in most of the major markets

You're right. Instead, smaller, more localized companies would offer the same dreary program offerings via syndication, as they did for years before deregulation.

I have no reason to believe that there will be any changes in programming if ownership laws are changed. It doesn't matter who owns the station. They compete with other stations in local markets. As one can see, through the ratings, there is obviously a big market for what you call "dreary program offerings," because typically, stations owned by the big companies are at the top of the ratings.

The reason single companies are allowed to own five stations in a market is because a typical market has 30 radio stations. That is way more than existed before the 1980s, when average markets had a handful of stations. That explosion in stations has made it difficult for an owner to make money as individual station audience size has been diluted.

Regarding newspaper-broadcast cross ownership, in those markets where it's allowed (via waivers and exemptions), the stations provide a larger amount of local news and information. One example is the Chicago Tribune's WGN-AM in Chicago. There are other great examples in Dallas, Atlanta, and Seattle. Newspapers have huge local reporting staffs that could be used for radio reporting. Conversely, broadcast revenues can replace declining newspaper revenues, and keep print journalism alive.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

The reason single companies are allowed to own five stations in a market is because a typical market has 30 radio stations. That is way more than existed before the 1980s, when average markets had a handful of stations. That explosion in stations has made it difficult for an owner to make money as individual station audience size has been diluted.

This is the reality that conversations on this board do not address seriously.

To make matters worse, the technology to bring digital to radio put a gleam in the eye of investors: I can run MULTIPLE audio channels on each of my stations. So were were faced with the possibility of 120 or more audio choices in every metro market.

Is there a graceful way to "thin the herd"?

 

[TheBigA]

So were were faced with the possibility of 120 or more audio choices in every metro market.

Is there a graceful way to "thin the herd"?

No, and there's no chance of that happening any time soon. Which is one reason why the government can't reimpose ownership limits on broadcasting.