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

[Paul Smith W4KNX]

But its been my findings that they probably own the BEST signals, especially
on AM.  Many of those signals dont cover the entire market, are rimshots or
lower power undesirable stations.

Paul Smith
W4KNX
Sarasota, FL

-----Original Message-----
From: broadcast-bounces at radiolists.net
[mailto:broadcast-bounces at radiolists.net]On Behalf Of Mike Gideon
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 10:11 AM
To: Broadcast Radio Mailing List
Subject: Re: NOT....Re: [BC] Clear Channel Wants More?


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/


_______________________________________________
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/