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

Wed Oct 5 19:46:25 CDT 2005

Mays doesn't whine, even though it may seem like a common trait to some

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "DANA PUOPOLO" <dpuopolo at usa.net>
To: "Broadcast Radio Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 7:41 PM
Subject: Re: NOT....Re: [BC] Clear Channel Wants More?

Ahh..but Mays was also whining about all the competition from XM, Sirius,
cable, Internet, etc. he wasts THAT comprtition lessened.

-D

------ Original Message ------
Received: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 08:42:28 AM PDT
From: "Mike Gideon" <mikegideon at comcast.net>
To: "Broadcast Radio Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
Subject: Re: NOT....Re: [BC] Clear Channel Wants More?

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/

_______________________________________________
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/ 