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

[Mike Gideon]

Ernie,

I'm going to let my friend (and boss) Steve Davis respond to you post. Then, 
I want to see the CC bashers beat up one of the most ethical guys I know. He 
has been with CC a lot longer than me, and has been in some meetings that 
were above my pay grade. Steve's comments embedded...

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Ernie Belanger" <armtx at mhcable.com>

To: "Broadcast Radio Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>

Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 1:09 PM

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



?      If clear channel wants to compete with XM and Sirrus let them send up 
a bird
> and start their own Satellite network.

      Clear Channel would be happy to do this if the spectrum were 
available.  CC was a bidder on the original two spectrum blocks for 
satellite radio.  We were outbid.
>
> They have far to much dominance, which has been referenced in this thread.

      In New York City, based on the latest Arbitron book, there are 149 
radio stations.  XM is allowed to have over 100 satellite channels there, as 
is Sirius.  No terrestrial radio owner can have more than 8 stations in any 
market, including one of that size.  Clear Channel and other large 
broadcasters believe the competitive playing field would be more level if we 
could own 12 radio stations.  12 out of 149 is hardly dominant.
>
> IF they are having a problem competing let them do what everyone else 
> does, adjust to the market. It was their idea to limit commercials, they 
> did, they lost revenue now they are belly aching about it. OH WELL...

      It was indeed CC's idea to limit commercials, and this was in fact an 
adjustment to the market.  With so many other choices radio broadcasters 
cannot air the same amount of commercial time as we could when there were 
fewer alternatives.  It's a fact of life.  Hopefully the listeners and 
advertisers appreciate this trend, which other broadcasters have also 
followed.  Fewer commercial minutes, for the listener, means back to the 
news/information or music sooner.  For advertisers, it means their message 
stands out against less clutter.
>
> They are bitching about having the cost of  the technical upgrade (ie HD 
> Radio) then don't install it. HD is not mandated technology. IF you want 
> to dance pay the piper. Don't bitch about the cost of paying the piper ... 
> if you can't afford it then don't dance.

      Clear Channel is simply stating a fact that to stay competitive new 
technology must be installed.  We are more concerned about the cost to other 
broadcasters than to CC.  For HD to truly succeed all broadcasters will need 
to adopt it.  No company has converted more stations to HD than Clear 
Channel, and we continue to aggressively convert stations every day.  We're 
only saying that we can provide a higher level of service, and afford a 
faster rollout and a greater level of capital investment, if we and others 
could own a few more stations in the very largest markets.
>
> Actually I personally believe it would be much better for Radio if the 
> Commission lowered the cap vs raising it.  Fewer stations per owner per 
> market makes for more robust competition and ultimately better Radio 
> Product.

      Most of us started in the days of 7/7/7 ownership limits and many 
small "mom and pop" owners.  How many of us were paid better, had better 
jobs and support, back then, than we are now?  How many of our facilities 
were truly superior to what we enjoy today?  There was so much "competition" 
that stations were going bankrupt at a record rate, and stations were 
cutting staffs, automating, going to contract engineers since they couldn't 
afford a full time engineer, etc.  And diversity?  Forget it!  With so many 
owners you had five CHR stations beating one another up for the same slice 
of the pie in a market, five country stations, 6 rock stations - you get the 
picture.  Any owner with 10 stations is NEVER going to program all 10 with 
the same format!  It just makes no sense.
>
> And that folks is how you compete with satellite.

      Why do people subscribe to satellite?  To experience content with 
fewer (or no) commercial interruptions, and to be able to travel over 
distance or to other towns and know they will hear music/entertainment that 
they like - sort of like knowing what you'll get when you go into a McDonald's. 
We at Clear Channel don't want traditional terrestrial radio to die out! 
But rather than hiding our heads in the sand and saying "if we just keep 
everything like it was in the old days everything will be ok", we're taking 
a hard, critical look at the real environment as it is today, with young 
people preferring Internet radio to terrestrial radio and satellite and 
IPods growing in proliferation and popularity, and trying to keep freshening 
our business so the broadcasters, talent, engineers, and many others (over 
55,000 employees) working for Clear Channel can continue to have fulfilling, 
meaningful and competitively compensated jobs in this great business.
>
> Greater Variety of LOCAL content that serves the audience VS a virtual 
> satellite network, voice tracked from God Knows where, which happens to be 
> on  terrestrial stations in almost every market.

      There you are simply wrong.  Even our "brand" formats like "KISS" are 
different in Tulsa, Oklahoma than in Philadelphia, PA.  As they should be. 
We have spent MILLIONS building huge studio complexes in large cities like 
Phoenix, Philly, Chicago, Dallas, etc. as well as small markets like Bangor, 
Laurel/Hattiesburg, Minot, Tulsa - all places where live announcers, news 
people, air talent and broadcast professionals of all types practice their 
crafts, locally.  If you ever doubt this please ask a fellow engineer, 
working for Clear Channel, to let you visit one of our many facilities, 
quite a few of which we have built in just the last few years.  We feel the 
terrestrial main channels are the place for live, local radio that is 
different in every market - the lifeline and pulse of a local community. 
But we also see where there is a market for more variety and greater 
continuity between different geographic locales like the satellite services 
provide.  So why not compete in that arena too?  This isn't just about Clear 
Channel.  It's about fairness in competition, and what's need to enable 
terrestrial radio to survive as a mainstream medium rather than a fringe, 
and enable many competing companies to continue to operate in this business. 
As for consolidation, Clear Channel is the largest owner of radio stations, 
it's true, but remember that Clear Channel owns fewer than 9% of all radio 
stations in the US.  Radio is the one of the LEAST CONSOLIDATED BUSINESSES 
IN THE US.  I don't think owning 9% of anything constitutes a "monopoly" or 
overly large control.
>