NOT....Re: [BC] Clear Channel Wants More?

[Mike Gideon]

That, and the ownership caps in the largest markets. Note that 12 stations 
in a 75 station market is NOT owning it all.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike McCarthy" <Towers at mre.com>
To: "Broadcast Radio Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 8:17 AM
Subject: NOT....Re: [BC] Clear Channel Wants More?


> What CC is doing is fighting the FCC as well as the satellite and CELLULAR 
> providers from:
>
> 1)Locally targeted broadcast (pushed) content on auctioned PCS spectrum at 
> 2Ghz as well as new re-allocated spectrum above 700 Mhz.
> 2) XM and Sirius from providing the same local targeted content.
>
> Neither have the myriad of compulsory local community of license and EAS 
> requirements that all Part 73 and some Part 74 licensees have placed upon 
> them by regulation. To that end, their costs of doing business places them 
> at an unfair advantage over terrestrial broadcasters.
>
> THAT's what CC is fighting.  And I agree with them 99,999,999%
>
> MM
>
>
> At 08:03 AM 10/5/2005 -0500, JYRussell at academicplanet.com wrote
>>Well, silly I might be but less than intelligent I'm not.
>>So, I'll try to copy Paul's stuff over to this reply, stick in my stuff, 
>>then you guys can tell me (nicely) where I got awry of the intended 
>>meanings:
>>
>>"Mays said that the company has been reducing the number of commercials 
>>over
>>the past year but signaled that such a reduction has come to an end. 'We
>>kind of got to the point that we thought was the equilibrium point,' he
>>said."
>>  *my interpretation* -
>>We can't charge enough for the few spots we still play to pay all the 
>>bills.
>>
>>"If it is true that revenues are down 13-percent for the preceding 12 
>>months,
>>the "equilibrium point" may have been over-shot.  The ongoing dilemma for
>>CCU and other radio stocks is how do you increase revenue growth at an
>>escalating rate while retaining listeners in an ever-increasing 
>>competitive
>>world?"
>>*my interpretation*
>>The other guys have figured out how to do this, but our "revenue growth" 
>>is still down.
>>"The article then states "He said free over-the-air radio 'is struggling' 
>>and
>>faces major competition from iPods and "podcast" programs, Internet radio,
>>wireless phone radio content and satellite radio. 'Free radio as we know 
>>it
>>is at risk," Mays said, and it "needs the government to step up and step
>>back.' " "
>>*my take on it*
>>If iPods and "podcast" and Internet radio etc are making it work by 
>>charging the subscription fees, the gov't should let us charge those fees 
>>too. (How? I dunno.)
>>In it's own way, it's about like I said a year or so ago... digital TV 
>>(and now maybe radio) is NOT designed to actually do anything for the 
>>consumer. (The fancy picture, or the googlephonic seperation schemes) 
>>Digital transmission is simply a means to DISALLOW reception by people who 
>>don't pay their bill.
>>
>>   For my part - it's decision time.   When you got started in radio - 
>> somebody told you that you would likely NOT become a millionaire.  Radio 
>> was something you did for the love of the job, for the audience, for 
>> something inside yourself... in a small market, you knew when you started 
>> you'll never become a bajillionaire like CC but you also knew you will 
>> also NEVER starve - iff your connection to your audience is as good as it 
>> should be.
>>
>>   What happened...?
>>
>>I don't need my butt ripped here;  I'm just telling you the read I get 
>>from this stuff, it's an opinion, and my final thought is that just 
>>because CC can't maintaiin a given "growth rate portfolio" to operate a 
>>huge business empire that seems to survive by strangling it's 
>>competition... maybe they should rethink their ability to actually "do 
>>radio" as opposed to "marketing a product".
>>
>>   Maybe their approach - somewhere - is just just different enough from 
>> what the podunk stations that it's time for the pendulum to swing the 
>> other way... and go back to fewer stations under a single banner, doing 
>> just a 'little' better job at serving the audience, so the audience will 
>> actually RESPOND to the commercials they hear...
>>which is part of what it was all about - years ago...
>>"motivating people" - "inform, entertain, enlighten", "serve the public 
>>interest"... all those stupid words.
>>
>>   I think of this big radio sceanario like Wal-Mart because the products 
>> I find available perform similarly.   Never actually what I stopped by to 
>> get, but kinda close, generally out of size or color, but close enough to 
>> work because I can't afford to shop at Sears or JC Penny or Neiman Marcus 
>> or Brooks Bro's... Wal Mart is close by and real cheap. (At First!)  Once 
>> they've run everybody else out of town... their prices go straight up!
>>
>>   Is their a difference here?
>>Wrong as it appears, it seems to me somebody is asking to own more radio 
>>stations so they can eventually own so much so cheap they can start 
>>raising their prices !  Sure it's a real loos analogy... but it's my 
>>"take" on a trend or tendancy, not a market by market point by point 
>>factual analysis, nor is it intended to be.
>>
>>  I just happen to be one of those few people who wish there were a few 
>> limits on what Wal Mart could get away with too...
>>Jason
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>This is the BROADCAST mailing list
>>To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
>>For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists: 
>>http://www.radiolists.net/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the BROADCAST mailing list
> To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
> For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists: 
> http://www.radiolists.net/