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

Wed Oct 5 10:48:30 CDT 2005

You mean the real broadcasters that were off the air during Katrina and 
Rita?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "KBlock" <kblock at cablerocket.com>
To: "Broadcast Radio Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 10:11 AM
Subject: Re: NOT....Re: [BC] Clear Channel Wants More?

> Perhaps the time has come for CC to dump some of their less attractive 
> property back into the hands of real broadcasters...
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "DANA PUOPOLO" <dpuopolo at usa.net>
> To: "Broadcast Radio Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 9:38 AM
> Subject: Re: NOT....Re: [BC] Clear Channel Wants More?
>
>
> Mike,
>
> No one helps ME when another contract engineer comes into town and sets 
> his
> rates 10 bucks below the market. I don't go whining to my Congressman 
> about
> it. I adapt. That's what COMPETITION is all about!
>
> There's an old saying: "If you can't take the heat, get out of the 
> kitchen!".
> It's quite approriate here.
>
> How many times have we debated here that: "It's the CONTENT, stupid!"?
>
> Obviously, the public has found content they like, and (unfortunately) 
> it's
> NOT on the radio. People generally vote with their feet. When sales at
> McDonald's dropped last year, you didn't see them going to Congress asking
> them to regulate Wendy's and Taco Bell...instead, they IMPROVED THEIR 
> PRODUCTS
> AND PRICING.  Guess what? It worked!
>
> Same thing with broadcast TV. I rember when there were only 4 TV channels 
> to
> choose from in Boston. Where my ex wife grew up in Kansas, there used to 
> be
> only ONE channel you could receive. Now Kansas has cable and satellite and
> there's HUNDREDS of channels to choose from out there on the plains....yet
> broadcast TV still has the most viewership there. Why? Because they SERVE
> THEIR AUDIENCE WELL!!
>
> I'm in Pittsburgh typing this. When I got here, I scanned the radio dial,
> found nothing that interested me and went back to XM.
>
> Get it? NOTHING interested me on (the) radio. How DARE Clear Channel go
> whining to the govt., to try and have them limit my listening options? How
> DARE they try and get Congress to FORCE me to listen to their stations?
>
> IF CLEAR CHANNEL GIVES ME WHAT I WANT, I'LL LISTEN TO IT! IF THEY DON'T, I
> WON'T! IF THEY WANT ME AS A LISTENER, THEN SERVE ME!!!!
>
> If Clear Channel, Infinity, Citadel, Entercom, Dana Puopolo or Mike 
> McCarthy
> can't take the 'heat' of competition, they should get out of the kitchen, 
> NOT
> go whining to Congress for help!!
>
> Just my .02
>
> -D
>
>
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> Received: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 06:16:09 AM PDT
> From: Mike McCarthy <Towers at mre.com>
> To: Broadcast Radio Mailing List <broadcast at radiolists.net>
> 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/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/ 