NOT....Re: [BC] Clear Channel Wants More?
Mike McCarthy
mre
Wed Oct 5 12:45:00 CDT 2005
THAT I do have a problem with Mike. Especially when CC and Infinity or
any of the two top 10 operators combined own more than 60% of the
market's ad revenues. Allow them 12 stations and the market's options
dwindle even further.
Here in Chicago, there are maybe 30 players who can cover the whole
market. CC already has 5 FM's here as does Infinity. The latter has
two 50KW Class A's. Between them, they get nearly 50% of the total ad
dollars. Leaving the other 50% to the remaining 26 total market
stations and the 25 or so rim shots which are considered in-market.
Then there the 30 or so non-coms which everyone happily lumps into the
total market count...even if they don't consume 3% of the "ad dollars".
Sorry...I'm not accepting that argument.
MM
> 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/
>
Reply to <towers at mre.com>
>From my traveling acount...
More information about the Broadcast
mailing list