RBR+TVBR OBSERVATION
As the radio industry slid into the Labor Day weekend, ahead of the Jewish New Year (Rosh Hashanah), the NAB and a group of nine radio broadcasting companies each submitted comments with the FCC that essentially offer the same plea to the Commission.
They want a further loosening of the radio ownership rules, one that would allow one single company to own every AM radio station in a market, regardless of its size. They want one single company to be able to own every FM radio station in a market under No. 74 in rank. They want a company to be able to own up to eight FMs in markets No. 1-No. 74.
The reasons are replete with finger-pointing toward Facebook and Google, and Amazon, too.
But, is it fair? Given the consolidation the industry has seen in the last 30 years, are we ready to see more when the argument is clearly about dollars, and not about consumers?
To be clear, we are not here to take sides. We simply are here to ask questions that we believe are legitimate to an argument that, to us, doesn’t seem to make much sense.
For the NAB and for such licensees as Conoisseur Media, Townsquare Media and Legend Communications, plus noted media broker Larry Patrick, the best way the Radio industry can compete against the “GAFAN” group of digital media giants is to further deregulate the industry.
Really?
They also argue that fewer ownership groups will lead to increased diversity in the amount of programming and listener choices made available to the consumer.
This is perhaps the bigger REALLY??? we can utter, using our Tom Leykis voice in our response.
Picture this: You’re in a city that once had some pretty nice hotels, some aged but some are refurbished and one is brand-spanking new. Today, every property is within the Marriott Bonvoy family. The local CVB is very pleased because Marriott is doing their part to modernize the market’s hotels, offering brand diversity with various levels of lodging. The result? This town’s lodging is actually better than it had been … although there are less proprietors now that Starwood is gone.
Here’s another scenario: You’ve relocated to a community and wish to go grocery shopping. Where you once lived, you had a choice of four supermarket chains. Now, you have one: Publix. And, there are four Publix stores in a 8-mile radius of where you live. Of course, Publix isn’t competing against other grocery stores — it says it is competing against Amazon, Walmart, and those pesky digital players that have hurt its business. Thus, it isn’t a monopoly … right?
That’s what Radio wants in markets like Wilkes Barre-Scranton, ranked No. 78 by Nielsen Audio. With Vince Benedetto’s Bold Gold Media, The Scranton Times and the Kristin Cantrell-led Seven Mountains Media in the ownership mix, these independent operators compete against publicly traded giants Audacy and Cumulus Media.
If the NAB and these ownership groups had their way, one of those five companies could own every single FM in Northeastern Pennsylvania’s prime market.
OK, today that may be unlikely, but in 8 years, a reenergized Cumulus could theoretically buy Seven Mountains, take Bold Gold’s properties, and get The Scranton Times properties. That leaves Audacy. And, well, we won’t use this space to discuss where they could be in 2029.
While owning every FM in market No. 83, Lakeland-Winter Haven, makes sense, given the few properties there, imagine Cumulus owning all of the FMs in Colorado Springs, market No. 87. How about one company owning all of the FMs in Syracuse, market No. 100?
We know Syracuse. Such an action would do nothing, in our view, to stem the use of local digital by Central New York businesses. Why? First, it comes down to rates. Second, it comes down to the quality of the programming available. It’s been years since Pilot Communications ran WNTQ “93Q,” but that heritage persists today under Cumulus. Across town is iHeartMedia. What if they decided that Syracuse isn’t so “Hot” anymore? Then, Craig Fox decides to take the money and run. This leaves Cumulus and Galaxy Media.
Galaxy isn’t selling. Today.
Conjecture is one thing. But amending rules that open the avenues to what’s ludicrous today but a probable deal in nine years is dangerous.
For radio to truly capitalize on its reach story, and recoup those lost dollars to local digital, it needs to look in the mirror and ask itself the toughest question no one wants to posit:
Is our content as good as it can be so we can fully triumph over the scourge of local digital?
In a six-station cluster, it takes more than throwing all of the resources at the one big station, and leaving the other five offerings as “add-ons” or stepchildren.
Even if it is one of the few remaining standalones in a market ripe for consolidation, it takes more than “live and local” if all of the hosts simply read liner cards and offer community calendar listings.
And, it takes more than simply throwing a new musical choice on the air if the listener simply hears “a whole bunch of songs in a row” and snarky pre-recorded liners.
Before radio consolidates further, it needs to address how it can truly offer live and local programming that matters, fulfilling the diversity desired by the Commission. Given where the industry is today, compared to 1990, that may not be an easy thing to accomplish. Just look at all of the layoffs seen since the start of 2020 — before there was a pandemic — at Audacy and iHeartMedia.
That’s why we scratch our heads on the subject of consolidation. We’re not saying no. But, we continue to wonder how it will help anyone but those across the radio industry’s C-Suites charged with the task of bringing revenue growth to its institutional investors.
After all, Clear Channel itself once said, “Less is More.”
The views expressed in an RBR+TVBR Observation are those of the Radio + Television Business Report’s editor-in-chief and not of Streamline Publishing, its leadership, nor its other industry publications.
TALK BACK TO RBR+TVBR! HAVE YOUR SAY IN THE COMMENTS BELOW! LET US KNOW HOW YOU TRULY FEEL ABOUT INDUSTRY CONSOLIDATION.
