Clear Channel not all bad

[GrantDawg]

hxxp://entertainment.myway.com/article/id/415713|entertainment|07-18-2004::18:06|reuters.html



Clear Channel Radio Cuts Commercials to Gain Ad Dollars



By Michele Gershberg





NEW YORK (Reuters) - Clear Channel Radio, the largest U.S. radio station chain, will significantly reduce commercial time sold on its stations to stem pricing weakness and convince marketers of the value of radio advertising.

John Hogan, chief executive officer of Clear Channel Radio, owned by Clear Channel Communications Inc,, said by next year the company's more than 1200 stations across the country would cut commercial and promotional time and limit the number of ads aired during each break.

"Radio is still discounted relative to other media," Hogan said. "We're taking this step to close that gap and make radio more competitive ... effective and valuable."

Promotional time will be reduced as of October 1, while new limits on commercial time would take effect no later than January 1, he said. Hogan said he hoped the new strategy will have a positive effect on revenue in 2005.

"Listeners would like more content and advertisers would like a better environment" for their commercials to stand out, Hogan told Reuters. "This is the right thing to do for the long term that will revitalize and rejuvenate the radio industry."

U.S. radio broadcasters have been grappling with excess advertising time at lower prices after cranking up the level of ad minutes per hour in the late 1990s. The sector has lagged an advertising rebound this year for other media, particularly cable television and the Internet.

Last month, a number of investment banks downgraded leading radio owners such as Clear Channel Communications, Westwood One Inc. and Citadel Broadcasting Corp., saying no end was in sight for slow sales and weak prices.

San Antonio, Texas-based Clear Channel Radio also is preparing a program to develop more entertaining and effective radio spots with advertisers, Hogan said. Details are to be announced at a later date.

"Not only are there too many commercials, there tend to be too many bad commercials," he said.

Hogan said the reduced time would vary from type of station, but would amount to at least several minutes fewer commercials per hour. Advertisers will be able to place their ad first or last during a commercial break, a strategy for which Clear Channel hopes to reap a premium, he said.

On country music stations, for example, peak morning broadcasts would be limited to 12 minutes of ad time per hour, and fewer minutes than that during other day-parts, he said. Commercial breaks will be no longer than four minutes, or six ads, on such stations, he said. News, talk and information formats will have a slightly higher threshold than music stations of several more minutes for ad time.

[CamEdwards]

News, talk and information formats will have a slightly higher threshold than music stations of several more minutes for ad time.

grrrrrr.

[JonInMiddleGA]

It's not quite the bargain you'd imagine.

This is a gamble that (IMO) will backfire on Hogan (who my wife & I have known since his years as a sales rep in Atlanta). CC stations are already typically the highest priced stations in a market & advertisers (like lil' ol' me) are already backing away from them before this artificial "shortage" of supply he's trying to create.

As a listener, it'll probably be a small bit noticeable -- but if I were an investor, I'd definitely dump my CC stock ASAP, they continue to dig their hole deeper & deeper.
And no matter how big you are, you can only bleed money for so long.

[Cringer]

No, there is nothing good about Clear Channel.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Maybe they're trying to keep listeners from station-hopping?

[Lorena]

No, there is nothing good about Clear Channel.

Clear Channel is the devil.

[Cringer]

Maybe they're trying to keep listeners from station-hopping?

I don't think they care, they own most of them. Hell, in San Antonio they even own a T.V. station.....all the news comes from them.....

[JonInMiddleGA]

I don't think they care, they own most of them. Hell, in San Antonio they even own a T.V. station.....all the news comes from them.....

As much as I hate to throw cold water on a good Clear Channel bash ...

-- Clear Channel owns 0 of the top 4 radio stations in San Antonio.(12+ share)
-- Both Cox & Univision have essentially the same market share as CC
-- And while not as successful as WOAI, there is another News/Talk station in the market
-- Clear Channel does indeed have some sort of time brokerage arrangement with WOAI/NBC in San Antonio, but there's also CBS/Fox/WB affiliates in the market, as well as an independent (i.e. non-network) & a PBS affiliate in the market as well.

That isn't exactly what I'd call a monopoly on the San Antonio marketplace.

{edited to add: CC also has some sort of time brokerage deal with the independent station in the market, but I didn't notice that when I posted originally. Still, not nearly enough to constitute a major worry IMO --
Hell, Cox Communications has a larger slice of the pie in Atlanta than CC has in San Antonio)

[Hurst2112]

No, there is nothing good about Clear Channel.

I don't get this. Up here, there is a bunch of people that say the same thing.

Why aren't they good? Needless to say, I don't listen to any radio so I might not be affected by them.

[MJ4H]

Seems like a response to subscription radio's early success to me.

[Sharpieman]

I don't get this. Up here, there is a bunch of people that say the same thing.

Why aren't they good? Needless to say, I don't listen to any radio so I might not be affected by them.
They did some F'ed up stuff to Howard Stern. Also, they use censorship against anti-conservative voices using their airwaves.

[Hurst2112]

They did some F'ed up stuff to Howard Stern. Also, they use censorship against anti-conservative voices using their airwaves.


Ah, I see. I was right, it doesn't affect me.

rock on

[Mr. Wednesday]

I don't think they care, they own most of them.It doesn't matter who owns the stations if I switch to another when they go to commercials, unless they manage to get them all on commercial at the same time. In Houston, I know that three or four of my five primary presets are Clear Channel.

[Ksyrup]

Screw music radio. I listen to what I like, hence no radio.

[Cringer]

I don't get this. Up here, there is a bunch of people that say the same thing.

Why aren't they good? Needless to say, I don't listen to any radio so I might not be affected by them.

They did screw Howard Stern, but he has come out ok from it I think now. That doesn't change the questionable reasons behind it, and their not-too-consistant stance on other shows that are "offensive."

Mainly though, they control a little too much for me, and they do lean heavily towards right wing radio. I understand these are popular shows, so they have a legitimate reason, but they are a little over the top for me. On the "control" side, they like to buy radio stations, to the point that they have a majority in a given town. Like in San Antonio, they have a bunch of the stations, and even own one of the TV stations which they all have work together. They control the news that is put out a little too much for my liking. They also have the same exact format on their radio stations. Their rock stations are all exactly the same from city to city, the talk stations all the same, even down to the voice over guy in the radio stations commercials. They give almost no room it seems for local stations to develop any kind of individual personality, and they all have the same playlists at music stations for each genre. Gone are the days it seems of, say a local rock station having the ability to play a local band every once and a while,or something like that. There is very little of that, if any, on their stations. The talk stations obviously will have a couple local guys, but they still have most of them with the same line-up, Rush then Hannity, and Drudge on sundays, then maybe Coast to Coast at night. Most of this goes back to congress though, for passing deregulation of the radio industry. I probably shouldn't blame Clear Channel as much as I do, but I do..... :D

[Ksyrup]

There are only a few independent stations that are trying to play something other than the standard corporate shlock. S why does anyone even listen to music radio anymore? Virtually all cars come with a CD player standard now, and virtually all computers come with a burner, so you can either play standard or homemade CDs with no problem. Do people just turn on the radio out of habit?

[Cringer]

There are only a few independent stations that are trying to play something other than the standard corporate shlock. S why does anyone even listen to music radio anymore? Virtually all cars come with a CD player standard now, and virtually all computers come with a burner, so you can either play standard or homemade CDs with no problem. Do people just turn on the radio out of habit?

To get news, traffic and weather is one reason I would assume.

Personally I listen to sportstalk radio, enjoy Coast to Coast AM, and listen to mornign shows like Howard, and Bob and Tom. I will listen to music n the radio for variety, but I am a little different hear because of my job. Driving for ten to eleven hours straight every night/morning I have listened to my CDs a few hundred times each atleast and still do, but a little change is nice once and a while.

And not everyone has a computer or even a CD player......

[JonInMiddleGA]

They did screw Howard Stern,

Sorry Cringer, but that's pure & unadulterated horseshit.

Howard screwed Howard. Period. End of sentence. He's simply finally starting to pay the piper, something that is long overdue.

"... to the point that they have a majority in a given town."

Again a popular claim. Also, again, not accurate. Working from the example of San Antonio, there are 31 different stations that earned at least 1% of the 12+ audience in the most recent ratings period.

Of those 31:
Clear Channel owns 7, which claim 21.7% of the audience
BUT ...
Cox Communications own 6, which claim 25.1% of the audience
Univision owns 3, which claim 12% of the audience
And the remaining 43.2% is split among 15 other stations, owned by a combination of 12 different groups, including some of the other industry
giants like Infinity, Emmis, and Salem.

Further, Clear Channel's highest rated station overall current sits 5th in the market, behind Univision's #1, and Cox with #2,#3, and #4.

As I said earlier, I enjoy a good CC bash as much as the next person, and probably more than a lot of them since their strong positioning in so many markets makes my work a living hell a good portion of the time ... BUT I'd like to stick to reality when I do it.

For anyone to claim they have "a majority in a given town" is simply absurd. Hell, even in Cincinnati, which is about as much a "Clear Channel company town" as you're going to find, their stations combine for about a 42% share with both Infinity and Susquehanna still competitive, not to mention what might well be the best-managed broadcasting company in the business, Radio One still in the marketplace along with them.

They control the news that is put out a little too much for my liking.

How is that exactly? I mean, yes, in San Antonio they have both the top rated news/talk station & one TV station. But there's another N/T station available for those who prefer it. And there's a variety of other TV news outlets, both local & national, with a variety of owners. And the newspaper there is owned by Hearst Corp, not Clear Channel.

Let's look at the top markets & see who has the leading N/T stations:
1) New York - WABC = ABC/Disney
2) Los Angeles - KFI = Clear Channel
3) Chicago - WGN = Tribune Broadcasting
4) San Francisco - KGO = ABC/Disney
5) Dallas - WBAP = ABC/Disney
6) Philadelphia - KYW = Infinity
7) Houston - KTRH = Clear Channel
8) Washington - WTOP - Bonneville or WMAL = ABC/Disney
9) Boston - WBZ = Infinity
10) Detroit - WJR = ABC/Disney or WWJ = Infinity
11) Atlanta - WSB = Cox
12) Miami - WAQI = Univision
13) Puerto Rico - WUNO = Arso Radio Corp
14) Seattle - KIRO = Entercom
15) Phoenix - KFYI = Clear Channel

So let's see here, CC owns the top rated N/T station in 3 of the top 15 markets, while ABC/Disney owns 4 of them, and there are more than a half dozen other groups represented. Umm ... that's a long way from being any sort of single-headed domination by my math.

They also have the same exact format on their radio stations. ... There is very little of that, if any, on their stations.

Nor on virtually any other station owned by a group with more than a half dozen or so markets. The days of the sort of radio you're talking about were over since before deregulation. I exited the business several years in advance of the most of the consolidation, but a handful of consultants were already programming the majority of music stations in the top 50 markets. And the top 50 markets were already driving the playlists of the smaller marekts, basically "programming" their music selection the majority of the time. The primary difference these days is that the consultants getting a few larger checks instead of a lot of smaller ones.

As a former music director, I'm not exactly a big fan of the whole consultant phenomenon, but ... there exists such a shortage of capable & competent music directors in virtually every format, at this point I can't really say I blame the corporates for their decisions too much.

The talk stations obviously will have a couple local guys, but they still have most of them with the same line-up, Rush then Hannity, and Drudge on sundays, then maybe Coast to Coast at night.

Let's see here, Rush's top affiliates:
WABC New York = ABC/Disney
KFI Los Angeles = CC
WLS Chicago = ABC/Disney
KSFO San Francisco = ABC/Disney
WBAP Dallas = ABC/Disney
WPHT Philadelphia = Infinity
KPRC Houston = Clear Channel
WMAL Washington = ABC/Disney
WRKO Boston = Entercom
WJR Detroit = ABC/Disney
WGST Atlanta = Clear Channel
WIOD Miami = Clear Channel
KTTH Seattle = Entercom
KFYI Phoenix = Clear Channel
KSTP Minneapolis = Hubbard Broadcasting

Yep, that's an enormous 5 out of the top 15 where Clear Channel airs Rush Limbaugh. And you can do pretty much the same thing for Hannity with some variations (for example, in Atlanta, Clear Channel has Rush but Cox has Hannity)

Sorry Cringer, but reality and your version of the tale don't seem to have a helluva lot in common.

[Buccaneer]

Jon, you can't be doing that here. One can only build up a strawman arguement without citing any facts or sources.

[JonInMiddleGA]

What gets overlooked in the ever-popular Clear Channel bashings is a pretty simple business reality -- a fair portion of the stations CC owns would have "gone dark" (i.e. shut down, be off the air entirely) by now if they hadn't overpayed for them by a factor of 5x to 10x in many cases.

Along with all of their large market blowtorches, CC picked up a significant number of medium & small market stations with poor signals/uncompetitive formats/hopeless situations. Make no mistake, they didn't do it out of the goodness of their hearts, they did it because Cox/Emmis/Infinity/Entercom/Radio One/"Acme Broadcasting Mega-Corp" would have bought 'em if CC hadn't.

And you can't really slide a hair off a gnat's ass between the difference in how CC runs their chain vs Cox vs Entercom, etc, etc, etc.

I don't care for Clear Channel, they're probably the most poorly run overall of the 3-5 largest chains, and I think deregulation will eventually be what kills off radio to a very large degree. But let's at least try to focus occasionally on being upset with all the megagigantic corps, not just one of them ... because they're pretty much all just alike, which is to say that they all would like to have 100% market share in every market in the country.

And while we're eagerly villifying them all, let's remember that "Mom & Pop" stations simply can't function in large numbers because the numbers have become too big for them to handle. They can't often absorb the cost of talent, of promotion, of ever-evolving & changing & updating equipment, of even being remotely competitive.
So, while I might choke on the words when admitting it, the choice really boils down to having a handful of chains who can take advantage of "buying the family size" discounts OR we can simply have a significant portion of the radio dial wind up dark. Deregulation happened, in part, because the mom & pop stations were going belly-up or because mom & pop decided to die off (literally) and there kids had no interest in working that many hours for that little money. Instead, they took the first really good offer somebody brought them, which was from one of the giants much more often than not.

I spent nearly half my life in the radio business, and if you offered me the keys to an average radio station tomorrow, debt-free & 100% mine, I'd say "thanks but no thanks". The hassle simply isn't worth the return on your blood, sweat, and tears investment ... if you're doing it right. But if you offered me 10 of them, or maybe more like 100 of them, I'd probably take you up on it -- I can do an awful lot of things "right" one time & improve the rate of return on that investment quite nicely.

[Cringer]

Excellent response, i give you that.

1.I obviously should not have used the word "majority" as that over stated the truth and was a mistake on my part.

2.As far as radio station format, what you say is probably true, but has become much more noticeable in recent years, especially on Clear Channel stations.

3.Let me correct the Rush/Hannity statement. Sorry, they got beat to the punch in some cities for those shows, and in the cities where they don't have them on they have some local wanna-be Rush or some other syndicated show that is on 500 other stations......

4. Chill out and cheer up, or go ahead and try to tear down my statements again, don't matter to me. I''m off to work for the week, and to listen to the fabulous radio stations across this fine country. :D

[JonInMiddleGA]

While we're on the subject (sort of), this seems like as good a place as any to mention that the finalists for this year's Marconi Awards were released today. The Marconi's are pretty much the radio industry version of the Oscars or the Tonys or whatever.

http://www.nab.org/Newsroom/PressRel/RS2004/marconi_finalists.htm

An unusual list this year IMO, looks more like a list selected kinda like the Grammy's than I'm used to seeing.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Seems like a response to subscription radio's early success to me.

"Last year Sirius lost $313 million on only $12.9 million in revenues. XM lost $584.5 million on $91.8 million in revenues"
http://www.fool.com/news/commentary/2004/commentary040213ram.htm

Yep, anybody with that sort of success would sure scare the hell outta me ;)

[CamEdwards]

They did some F'ed up stuff to Howard Stern. Also, they use censorship against anti-conservative voices using their airwaves.

no, really they didn't. what you have are two disgruntled employees (one in Phoenix, one in South Carolina).

I can tell you, as a former CC talk show host, that there was never any pressure to express your opinion in a manner that the higher-up's wanted you to. I went after Bush on immigration and the Patriot Act, and no one said a darn thing.

As much as I hate the incredible amount of commercials they saddle the talk stations with, they do not "silence" those they disagree with. As for Howard Stern, they were facing millions of dollars in fines and a host who didn't work for them and would therefore not follow new guidelines designed to make sure the company didn't get hit with more fines. They did the right thing from a business standpoint.

[CamEdwards]

dola: of the four hosts that Cringer mentioned, only two are CC hosts. Hannity's syndicated through ABC, as is Drudge. In fact, after Rush and Coast to Coast, CC's lineup of syndicated shows isn't the greatest.

[Buccaneer]

I went after Bush on immigration and the Patriot Act, and no one said a darn thing.
I did too but it apparently touched a nerve too close to the Dems. Tighter immigration (re: more secure borders) means potentially less Democratic votes. I saw them agonizing over wanting to make this yet another anti-Bush point but they really couldn't go either way without alienizing one core group or another.

On the Patriot Act, I always had my reservations against this - solely on the ground of libertarianism. But I still find depressingly funny to see many so-called liberals railing against this (again, just to be anti-Bush) when their representatives were very enthusiastic to support this. See your Senator on this list?

Alphabetical by Senator Name <TABLE class=contenttext cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=1 width="100%" border=0 VALIGN="TOP"><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD class=contenttext width="33%">Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Campbell (R-CO), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Yea
Cleland (D-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Corzine (D-NJ), Yea
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Yea
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
</TD><TD class=contenttext width="33%">Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (D-FL), Yea
Gramm (R-TX), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Helms (R-NC), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Hutchinson (R-AR), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Jeffords (I-VT), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Not Voting
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
</TD><TD class=contenttext width="33%">McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nickles (R-OK), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-NH), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thompson (R-TN), Yea
Thurmond (R-SC), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wellstone (D-MN), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Yea
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
But considering a majority of Americans still strongly favor security over privacy, any snipings against the P.Act ring hollow to me unless you lean libertarian.

[ageofquarrel]

They also own some major venues for shows and promotions here in phildelphia. I know they bought the TLA (venue in phildelphia) and also has some association with the khyber, trocadero and northstar bar. Which is pretty much where people use to go to see indie music or still do(I rarely make it out to shows anymore). They also filed a complaint with the L&I over a church that was putting on local hip hop, hardcore, and indie shows in their basement, and got it shut down for awhile. It did not have permits to be a proper venue for entertainment. Basically the main guy who was booking shows there got a call from a popular rapper Ol' Dirty Bastard's manager. About booking a show for him. He said he couldn't do it (security concerns and small size of the basement). It was pretty cool, but some of the people who work at clear caught wind of it. Pretty funny considering that it was no competition to them.

Also, the owners want to sell the troc to Clear. Which I have no problem with them wanting to sell. So basically they are tring to clean up the place. Im friends with alot of the bouncers and they are all great people but most of them work there under the table, and most have quit because they dont want to pay under the table. The funny thing is the new bouncers are complete assholes. The last day my good friend Rick worked there was at a JC concert the dude from N sync. So of course all these little pre tennage girls are there and of course all these "professional" security they brought in are hitting on this 14 year olds. Sure I know its not clears fault or anything. I know the guy in charge of booking there is working for clear and he has to tell them who is playing because there is bands that are banned from playing thier shows.

I know someone will post about how thay are just doing business. But of course alot of those bands that played at the church got screwed because of cancellations or the show being moved and they lost money. I know my friends band show got moved to a place in the fucking ghetto and not that many people showed cause of the location. Also someone broke into my rides car, so hopefully you can see my point of view. On why I dont like clear channel too much.


P.s sorry about spelling mistakes and bad grammar. I suck

[ice4277]

I did too but it apparently touched a nerve too close to the Dems. Tighter immigration (re: more secure borders) means potentially less Democratic votes. I saw them agonizing over wanting to make this yet another anti-Bush point but they really couldn't go either way without alienizing one core group or another.

On the Patriot Act, I always had my reservations against this - solely on the ground of libertarianism. But I still find depressingly funny to see many so-called liberals railing against this (again, just to be anti-Bush) when their representatives were very enthusiastic to support this. See your Senator on this list?

...

But considering a majority of Americans still strongly favor security over privacy, any snipings against the P.Act ring hollow to me unless you lean libertarian.
I also am not in favor of the Patriot Act, and have never voted for a Democrat in a major election. I think one reason so many voted in favor of the act is that, at the time, any 'dissention' in the war on terror would have been viewed by many as un-American. In many ways, this is still the case, just another by-product of the silly 'with us or against us' stand that the government seems to take on just about every issue.

[Buccaneer]

But you have to go back to November of 2001 and see/read the actual quotes of those apparently 'forced' to vote for this against there own responsibility of being representatives. To me, it was yet another case of the federal govt fixing a problem that the people demanded that they do so, regardless of cost and consequences. Sounds like every major legislation coming out of Congress to me.

[JonInMiddleGA]

ageofquarrel -- I won't rip you for the grammar, but I hope you'll indulge me a question or two in return ;)

If I followed your post correctly, it was either CC people or people from a venue that has a relationship with CC that filed the complaint about the improperly permitted venue -- but how about putting the bulk of the blame on the venue that failed to follow local law in the first place? Considering the tragic fire that took place at the Great White show, I'd have to think anybody who tries to run a show in an unpermitted venue is foolhardy at best, and I can't say that I've got much in the way of sympathy for them.

On a broader issue, I'm not completely comfortable myself with the ... chummy relationship that exists between the concert promotions division & the broadcasting division. But if it weren't for the CC concert division, it seems likely that there'd be a good bit fewer concerts around the country too, so there's some push/pull going on there.

[kcchief19]

Back to the topic of bashing Clear Channel, this is great news. Instead of hearing the same 12 songs every hour, this new policy will enable Clear Channel to not only play the same songs every hour, but they will be able to squeeze one of those songs in twice! Woo-hoo! That's 8 percent more Usher!

[ageofquarrel]

ageofquarrel -- I won't rip you for the grammar, but I hope you'll indulge me a question or two in return ;)

If I followed your post correctly, it was either CC people or people from a venue that has a relationship with CC that filed the complaint about the improperly permitted venue -- but how about putting the bulk of the blame on the venue that failed to follow local law in the first place? Considering the tragic fire that took place at the Great White show, I'd have to think anybody who tries to run a show in an unpermitted venue is foolhardy at best, and I can't say that I've got much in the way of sympathy for them.

On a broader issue, I'm not completely comfortable myself with the ... chummy relationship that exists between the concert promotions division & the broadcasting division. But if it weren't for the CC concert division, it seems likely that there'd be a good bit fewer concerts around the country too, so there's some push/pull going on there.


Yeah I guess, but they did run a day care during the day, and also they have meetings there. I know that Mayor Street spoke there once, before he was the mayor. So maybe the church thought they had all thier bases covered. It was pretty surprising to me when I found out.Considering, the shitholes i was used too.

Wait, was the club that had the great white show, not have a permit? I remember the fire. Funny, the only time I have ever been in any real danger was in 1997 at a show. Was at the Trocadero, which is in chinatown. Wasnt into the headlining band so I went outside with a girl. Was waiting outside on some friends who were staying. When a nazi skinhead shot a homeless black guy about 100 ft from were we where standing. Luckily, he was only hit in his arm and should be ok. I should post some stories about the Stalag 13. Basically it was a homeless squat in west philly that had shows, and I never had a problem there.

Actually the Electric factory filed for bankruptcy awhile back, because of clear channel. Lets say Band A was going to play the troc(who they had no affilation with at that time). So they would double the trocs offer to Band A. Band A would accept and so instead of playing to a sold out crowd at the troc at 14$ for a ticket, they would play in a empty airplane hanger for 24$ a ticket. No one would show up because of the price increase. Now clear might own the troc, ironic.

hxxp://philadelphia.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/stories/2003/06/23/story1.html?page=1

[Sharpieman]

I'm sorry, but CC DID screw Howard Stern. I never heard the word indencey on the radio until after Janet Jackson showed her boob and AFTER Stern started talking shit about the Bush Admin. Then the FCC started slapping CC and Stern for fines. CC in turn holded Stern's wages. Oh I forgot to mention, one of the senior officals at the FCC had the nerve to tell the public that since Oprah Winfrey was too popular, they wouldn't slap her with a fine when one of here guests struck up a conversation about "salad tossing". They selectively went after Howard Stern and CC doesn't do anything to protect a host who has made millions of dollars for their company. Don't give me that "Stern screwed himself" crap. He had been doing the same kind of vulgar show for years and had never been fined before until he started talking shit about the Bush admin.

[ice4277]

I'm sorry, but CC DID screw Howard Stern. I never heard the word indencey on the radio until after Janet Jackson showed her boob and AFTER Stern started talking shit about the Bush Admin.
Are you kidding me? The Jackson incident was just the straw that broke the camel's back. There has always been talk centered around Stern, for much longer than Bush has been in office.

[Ksyrup]

To get news, traffic and weather is one reason I would assume.
But I'm talking about music, not news. Talk radio and FM morning shows are not music. People are specifically complaining about the lack of variety in music because CC owns all of the stations. And I say, if you don't like what they play, why are you listening? Bring a CD or make a mix disc or something.

That seems to solve the problem for me. And it's more productive than stewing about hearing the same song at 3, 5, and 7.

[JonInMiddleGA]

He had been doing the same kind of vulgar show for years and had never been fined before until he started talking shit about the Bush admin.

And the color of the sky on your planet is ... ?

Infinity, the biggest U.S. radio network after Clear Channel, was fined 14 times for Mr. Stern's show between 1990 and 1998 for a total of $2 million, the study found. That includes the biggest fine ever imposed by the FCC, for $1.7 million in 1995.
http://washingtontimes.com/business/20040318-094331-2403r.htm

That's FOURTEEN times in an 8-year period, that's darned near a semi-annual event for the better part of a decade.

Perhaps listening to less Howard & paying more attention to what's really going on in the world around you would prevent you from posting such easily refuted b.s. in the future. But no, at this point I fear that'd be hoping for too much :rolleyes:

[GrantDawg]

And the color of the sky on your planet is ... ?

Infinity, the biggest U.S. radio network after Clear Channel, was fined 14 times for Mr. Stern's show between 1990 and 1998 for a total of $2 million, the study found. That includes the biggest fine ever imposed by the FCC, for $1.7 million in 1995.
http://washingtontimes.com/business/20040318-094331-2403r.htm

That's FOURTEEN times in an 8-year period, that's darned near a semi-annual event for the better part of a decade.

Perhaps listening to less Howard & paying more attention to what's really going on in the world around you would prevent you from posting such easily refuted b.s. in the future. But no, at this point I fear that'd be hoping for too much :rolleyes:

Howard was just fined back then because he was critical of Clinton. Howard can walk on water and has never done anything to deserve criticism in anyway. Didn't you know that?

[JonInMiddleGA]

People are specifically complaining about the lack of variety in music because CC owns all of the stations.

Because the complaints seem to be much like the old claims about how much PBS people were watching -- they aren't true en masse, they're just popular to spout, like some sort of badge of honor.

Playlists have become narrower & narrower over the years because of some very simple facts, some of which are explained pretty well in an old article from a 1998 SPIN magazine.

For any station, the trick is to play enough new music to satisfy loyalists (a station's score ), while snagging channel-jumpers who tune in to six different stations and never stick around longer than a song or two (they dominate a station's "cume" or cumulative audiences). Some commercial stations play as few as 20 currents, and a few play as many as 50. ... I asked a dozen different programmers, radio consultants, and trade journal reporters why, and heard the same answer phrased in slightly different ways. Because listeners can only absorb so much new music. Because it's the only way to make a difference with record sales. Because it works, dammit. The most telling answer came from Kevin Stapleford, who programmed 91X in San Diego for six years but is now a consultant with his own firm, KDK Media. "Radio isn't really meant for people who listen to it for hours," he explained in a voice hovering between acceptance and despair. "Radio is designed for people who listen for ten minutes at a time."

It's an old, but fairly long & detailed article that doesn't cover some of the newest trends/concerns (such as "indie" promoters) but does IMO a very good job of explaining both the path that stations were on and why they were there. And that goes a pretty good ways toward explaining where we are today too.

Now, FTR, I think the narrowing has gone too far overboard for a lot of formats.

A not bad & unofficial rule of thumb that seems to make sense in my experience is that "the older the audience, the broader the playlist" wouldn't be bad. I know, I know, somewhere out there somebody is thinking "that doesn't make sense, it's the younger audience that's more adventurous". But the basic notion behind my unofficial theory is that older audiences have: a) longer attention spans (whether by nature or by circumstance, such as being stuck in an office all day) and b) they have more history with music in general, they remember more artists coming & going, they might be more open to hearing a new single from a legacy artist and at the same time they might be more receptive to a new artist that reminds them of when a long-time favorite first broke onto the scene.

But that's a theory that I haven't tested in the wild, and it isn't one that I'd be entirely comfortable risking millions of dollars on without seeing some pretty comprehensive research either. And if I'm hesitant, sitting here just talking about "play money", imagine the hesitation on the part of an owner/group who has very real hundreds of millions at stake.

edited to add linkage to article I mentioned
http://www.radiodiversity.com/whokilledradio.html

[kcchief19]

Rhetoric aside, the "legitimate" complaint against Clear Channel is that they only took action on Howard Stern went it become politically expedient to do so. Stern's show post-Janet Jackson was no different than it was before. Before Janet Jackson, the FCC only expressed an interest in punishing Infinity as syndicator for the program and only for violations on Infinity-owned station. But after the FCC threatened a crackdown, Clear Channel caved.

The argument, then, is that Clear Channel used Stern as a cash cow until they were threatened with fines for broadcasting his program. The logic of this argument is that Clear Channel was more concerned with profits rather than with First Amendment rights. Rather than say, "Howard has a right to say what he has to say just as listeners have the right not to listen to him," Clear Channel gave in to what critics would call censorship of free speech.

This move came at a time when Clear Channel was also boycott the Dixie Chicks for speaking their mind and encouraging their stations to organize somewhat bizarre protests (one of the CC stations here held a Dixie Chicks bonfire). Did Clear Channel have the right to do that? Absolutely -- their a business, it's a free country and they can do what they want. But critics would argue that when you're in the business of brodcasting speech and your decided to censor speech, whether it's booting Stern or boycotting the Dixie Chicks, you've breached an ethical line in the sand.

And yes, CC has been accused of trimming the play lists of its stations to include fewer songs and fewer artists, squeezing out local artists and independents. Once again, it's a free country and they can do that, and they have proven that it's a money-making strategy.

However, Clear Channel and their supporters can't have it both ways -- they can't run their empire like a blood-thirsty business with little for First Amendment issues and not expect criticism. I'm not against anyone turning a buck -- I like making money, too -- but I couldn't live with myself if I made money the way Clear Channel does. I'd feel like I'd sold my soul to the devil.

[JonInMiddleGA]

A blip in today's edition of R&R sort of echoes something I alluded to when this thread began (the highlight is added by me)

Stonegate Capital Markets Managing Director Joel Hartstone said yesterday at the MMTC summit that while large clusters enjoy a commanding hold on radio ad revenue when the advertising market is robust, in the current weak advertising environment big clusters have little room to maneuver as they try to cut costs in order to salvage a healthy bottom line.
http://radioandrecords.com/Newsroom/2004_07_20/consolidationsbenefits.asp

What he refers to is a part of what I had in mind when I said this stunt by CC isn't going to have the desired effect (driving up revenue). With rates that are already running higher than the market average in many places, the notion that advertisers
are going to pay a significant premium for spot positioning borders on the absurd IMO.

The premium for "fixed position" spots typically runs around 20%-25%, and since they were already overpriced, it seems unlikely to me that most advertisers are going to be willing to absorb that bump just to move their commercial around by 30/60 seconds. And as the article above points out, megacorps like CC have been left with very little room to manuever. It's damned near impossible to negotiate rates with them now,
I can only imagine what this pseudo inventory shortage is going to do to that.

They're already quite willing to walk away from 5-figure ad budgets in order to "preserve their rate", and I've seen no evidence from them that they won't walk
away from 6 & 7 figure budgets for the same reason.