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

[Mike McCarthy]

Dana, you missed my point.

I said I support them in their fight to require the same compulsory 
services mandated on Part 73 and Part 74 stations for their local 
targeted content. IE EAS and public affairs shows.

Nothing more.

MM

> 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/
> 

Reply to <towers at mre.com>
>From my traveling acount...