[BC] Another one "bites the dust"

[Mark Humphrey]

On 2/8/07, WFIFeng at aol.com <WFIFeng at aol.com> wrote:

> Ok... so... what can I add to what he has said? Not much. Personally, I don't
> put all of the blame on CC as he seems to... it's happening not just with
> them, but with a *lot* of the large Group owners.
>  So, I submit this article for your thoughts and look forward to reading them.

What disturbs me about the "consolidation" movement that has taken
place over the past 20 years, is that the big groups have largely
failed to deliver on promises made to our legislators by their
lobbyists.  (So, what else is new?)

As I recall, Congress was sold on the increase in ownership limits by
a claim that "economies of scale" would help preserve, if not enhance,
local radio news coverage -- and maintain niche formats (like
Classical) that would otherwise die for lack of revenue.

But, in most cases,  just the opposite has happened.

Many of these groups have based programming decisions on what would be
best for the overall "cluster" from a sales/demographic standpoint --
not the public interest. Most of you will also remember that allowing
fewer people to own more stations was somehow supposed to "increase
competition". (Perhaps the legislators were also sold by money
changing hands, but I won't go into that.)

Lobbyists pushed for an increase in major market ownership limits by
pointing out that Docket 80-90 had added 1000 FM signals.  But how
many of these new "competitors" were allocated to markets like New
York, Chicago, Boston, San Francisco, etc?  Or even smaller cities
like Buffalo or Hartford?   I would guess at least half of the 80-90s
went to unrated markets that the groups don't care about, because the
profit margin is too low.  But somehow, we were supposed to feel
sympathetic about their plight and allow a handful of people to take
over the top 50 markets.

It's so painfully apparent that the big owners just want to grab as
many 50+% profit margin major-market big-signal cash cows as they can.
 In an effort to push this through, there are misleading claims still
being made.

For instance, Clear Channel's executives seem offended that they can
own only 8 signals in New York, a "market with 145 stations".
Obviously, they are counting the high school and college stations and
little daytimers out in the distant suburbs to come up with this
figure.  Tell me, are all 145 covering the same area?  Let's compare
revenue, and we might not feel so sympathetic.

Read what their spokesperson, Rep. Fred Upton, has been saying
recently.  The tired arguments that were made in '96 haven't changed
at all:

http://www.mediainstitute.org/Speeches/Upton_02162006.pdf
http://www.techlawjournal.com/telecom/20030410upton.asp

I take comfort in knowing that one of my local clients still operates
under the doctrine:

Listeners first,
Advertisers second,
Team members third,
Owners last

On the other hand, at many of the big groups, its:

Top Level Executives first,
Stockholders second,
Advertisers third,
while the listeners and employees fight for last place...

Mark