BLOG

Consolidate and Cut: Thank you FCC

From Radio Ink, with the truth of the matter noted between the lines:

NAB: Cross-Ownership Ban Was ‘No Longer Justified’

Translation: How are we supposed to consolidate and cut our way out of financial trouble unless you let us consolidate and cut?

WASHINGTON — December 18, 2007: NAB EVP Dannis Wharton said Tuesday the organization is “pleased the FCC has adopted a revised newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rule, recognizing that a 30-year-old complete ban is no longer justified.” Wharton said the change is “modest” but “an important step forward in aligning broadcasting regulations with the realities of today’s communications marketplace.”

Translation: If you can’t beat ‘em, buy ‘em. And if nobody can successfully compete separately at least lets all not successfully compete together. Because after all, in five years we’re outta here. At least this way we can earn some steep fees from wrapping up newspapers and radio stations in a snug little sub-competitive package before we go.

The FCC also reached some tentative conclusions and asked for public comment Tuesday on broadcast localism, including proposals that broadcasters meet with local groups to discuss community issues and on the nature and amount of community content and political programming.

Translation: We will make symbolic efforts to shut you up, community activists. We will specifically mandate programs that nobody wants to hear so as to prove we care about what you want to hear.

Wharton said, “We will also be reviewing closely the FCC’s ‘localism’ proposal, a proceeding that carries grave First Amendment implications and which stems from a false notion that radio and television stations have abandoned our commitment to serving communities or have stopped offering distinctive local programming.”

Translation: Don’t make us laugh, American public. You and your puny interests.

Wharton cited broadcasters’ efforts with emergency coverage, Amber Alerts, and in other areas, and said, “We are confident that any truly objective localism analysis will vindicate the performance of radio and TV broadcasters and overshadow the shrill voices of those who would regulate broadcasters back to the 1960s.”

Translation: You’re wrong, America. You’re not even a little bit right. Somehow we actually think we can clear up the confusion and convince you you’re off-base! And no, we’re not kidding. Yeah, the big get bigger, but you know the old saying: When you eat like an elephant, you shit like an elephant.

Look, my major issue with all this isn’t simply that it would lead to more consolidation (many of the NAB’s arguments are quite correct, I think), but that it will lead to denial of the real issues facing broadcasting’s future and the real antidote to those issues.

And that antidote is not “consolidate and cut.”

3 Comments;
  • George

    On the contrary, I think newspapers are far more qualified to own broadcasting than most radio companies.
    When you examine the newspapers who currently own broadcasting, they do a much better job of local news coverage than radio-only companies.
    My hope is that some newspapers buy poorly performing radio stations, and use their far better resources to provide better local news coverage. Take a look at ANY newspaper web site and compare it to ANY radio web site. WHO is doing a better job on the web? Is there any question?
    The pool of companies interested in owning radio has dried up. It’s become incestual, with radio companies buying up other radio companies. We’ve seen the results. The need now is to allow qualified media organizations to enter that pool and compete against these lazy radio companies. If better programming wins, the losers here will be radio-only companies who failed to diversify.

  • http://www.mercradio.com Mark Ramsey

    That’s one view, and you make some valid points. But it doesn’t change these facts:
    1. Fewer owners with more media properties under one roof – which is what the public fuss is all about in the first place.
    2. The desperate need of one industry (print) with 20+% margins to sustain those margins with another industry (radio) with 40+ margins which they, too, are desperate to protect. Good luck to all.
    3. The example set by other media companies where, despite cross-ownership, there is very little synergy.
    4. The reality that this is likely to hold up prices for radio stations which will, in turn, raise profit expectations – and the shortest path to realizing those is to fire folks.
    5. How well has this cross-media thing worked for radio, now that CBS and CCU own their own outdoor companies? Has it saved them? Or only forestalled the inevitable?
    6. Under no circumstance does one struggling industry buying another struggling industry make for a new industry without struggle.

  • George

    “Fewer owners with more media properties under one roof”
    The concern shouldn’t be about quantity but quality. So far, the only broadcasters that seem to be using their air signal for a political agenda are Fox & PBS. They cancel each other out. I think it’s much ado about nothing. Murdoch needs some competition. The current crop of owners have no clue. Let someone else have a chance.
    “How well has this cross-media thing worked for radio”
    Let’s just look at the specific newspaper cross-ownership examples in Chicago, Atlanta, Dallas, and NY. For the most part, the radio stations owned by newspapers are of higher quality, and more local content, than radio-only companies.
    Here’s the reality: The companies with cash to burn aren’t thinking about radio. Do you really think Apple is going to buy broadcasting? Ha! ANYone who buys radio is struggling and will continue to struggle. That’s just the name of the game, and why radio will continue to downsize.
    It’s supply & demand. Right now, supply exceeds demand.

Sign Up For Blog Email Updates

About

MRM President Mark Ramsey has worked with innumerable television and radio broadcasters over his career, including all the biggest names, from Clear Channel, CBS, Bonneville, Sirius XM...

Mark Ramsey