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

[Mike Gideon]

Wasn't referring to you, I was referring to Mark


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike McCarthy" <mre at ais.net>
To: "Broadcast Radio Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 12:55 PM
Subject: Re: NOT....Re: [BC] Clear Channel Wants More?


> 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...
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/