NOT....Re: [BC] Clear Channel Wants More?
Mike McCarthy
mre
Wed Oct 5 12:56:20 CDT 2005
Whoa Mike...I didn't say relax the cap. I said that these other
services are coming on the field and making it uneven in their favor by
adding targeted local content.
MM
> He's not whining. He's simply pointing out that the competitive
landscape
> has changed, and the cap can be relaxed. Nobody regulates the number
of
> stations you can contract.
>
> ----- 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/
>
Reply to <towers at mre.com>
>From my traveling acount...
More information about the Broadcast
mailing list