No matter how you look at it..

Ownership of radio and TV needs to be diversified..

Since indie artists usually get their first air play on the smaller stations you would think diversification would BENEFIT the tail end of music..

Ah yes, but I say you're missing one very key part of this: the majors are slowly (too slowly, you can say) dying.  Their grip over airwaves lessens no matter how concentrated.  So I ask you, who controls your radio playlist tomorrow post-major label?

err... it's not the Majors who are going under.  Look around, the Majors are fine, it's all the INDIES who hurt these days...

Wow...just, wow.  I am removing DMN from my RSS feed for this.  The author poses a question in the title, but never makes a case for their argument other than posting a letter that they had already summarized.  This is irresponsible journalism.  

My original reaction to reading this was to comment with information on the subject (a subject the author clearly has done absolutely no research on) in an attempt to inform other readers, but honestly this article doesn't deserve any debate on the issue because of the terrible way it is presented.

And since I can only assume that this comment will be removed, my only hope is that the original post is also removed so that no one else has to be subjected to it.

In the time it took you to type out your petty rant you could have at least cut and paste a link to whatever political/business interests you represent.

@future former reader

I say this with all honesty.

First, there's no way your comment will be removed.  And, I'm sad to see you go. 

The reason is that our publication benefits from even the most biting critics, and many of our regular readers regularly disagree with us.  Some virulently hate most of our stories, and frankly, we're lucky to have them.  It oftentimes forces us to consider the other side, other viewpoints, and tighten the publication. 

The same is true with those that agree, expand upon, and support our opinions.

/paul

I don't understand it either. The letter is talking about ownership of media entities, not ownership of broadcasted IP. I don't see how this relates to artists, nor do I see how it impacts the music industry in any significant way.

The third sentence of the letter mentions "ownership of...local radio stations."

Maybe you believe local radio no longer has any significant impact on the music industry?

Yeah, and how many indie bands really get discovered on mainstream radio?

David, 

At the risk of being brusque here, do I have to connect every last dot for you?  Of course, these Senators are focusing on news coverage and information, but there's a much larger picture.  

There's an interesting piece on this topic from the Future of Music Coalition, whose office is just across town from the Senate (just one of many).  FMC writes:

"Due to federal policy decisions going back more than a decade, it has been enormously difficult for most artists to gain access to the airwaves, no matter how talented or popular. This is due to the rampant consolidation in radio station ownership as a result of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which lifted the caps on how many stations a single broadcast company could own. Following the passage of this legislation, it was goodbye mom and pop stations, hello, Clear Channel." 

And Clear Channel is where we all discover those hidden indie and local bands (now I'm just being snide).  But more on that here.

Basically the entire letter is about how they are opposing legislation that would allow further consolidation of media entities. They explain that local broadcast stations should have local owners because it lets them target their content to their viewers.

Maybe you should explain how this letter is in agreement with the 1996 Act, because it pretty clearly states that it's in opposition to it.

For example,

"...when programming decisions are made by large media companies from hundreds of miles away, coverage of local news can become either diluted or neglected."

and

"...diversity of ownership will be negatively impacted by the proposed rule changes."

Paul, look. From your article:

"But isn't the internet the great equalizer here? Not necessarily: the following is a letter drafted by several Senators to FCC commissioner Julius Genachowski and shared with Digital Music News on Friday. It argues that old, crusty, 'terrestrial' radio is still a very potent force in American media, and should have broader ownership diversity. Genachowski is now making moves to further relax ownership restrictions not only for radio stations, but also related TV and print publications. The result could make it even harder for newer artists to break through."

Maybe it's just an editorial mistake on your part, but your blog post is written in a way that's vague about the intent of the letter. And whether it's true or not, you also don't cite anything that backs up the claim that broadcast could get worse in the near future.

"Future former reader" seems a little confused, but it's understandable.

Quote "Maybe it's just an editorial mistake on your part, but your blog post is written in a way that's vague about the intent of the letter"

upon first read it seemed that way to me also.. (until I reread it and realized who the FCC chairman was and what he was attempting)

Originally it seemed really weird that Paul was AGAINST the diversification of radio ownership..

so maybe for clarity paul you should have 'connected the dots' not assuming everyone would read the article..  ;-) or realized that "Genachowski" is the bad guy trying to allow more radio monopoly..

Am I the only one tired of syndicated radio?

No, but sadly pretty close to it. There has been enough research done to prove most people cannot tell the difference. The result is in the next 5 years, Clear Channel could very possibly fire all local air staff except for top market morning shows. As of right now, they have been actively firing employees on a continous basis. They have a lot of debt.

It will only get worse if the performance right for radio gets passed. Then the chances of ever hearing a payola'ed to hell song on the radio will be exactly zero.

Isn't broadcasting music people actually want to hear a better business model? Won't catering to people's tastes drive up the number of listeners and therefore raise on-air advertising rates? Why shut out newer music? Why only rotate a "14 song infomercial"? Electronic music never really had a mainstream terrestrial radio presence and now EDM's the hotest thing and no one can make money?

Because the sad reality is that most people will listen anyway. Until a reasonable alternative comes around for listening in the car that does not cost $15+ per month, radio can basically do whatever it wants. It has a captive audience.

New ownership would actually make it easier for new artist. The first time, I actually disagree with you. Your way off on this one Paul.

Myths myths and more myths .. .and Paul, I agree with David.  I opened my email, read the summation and found it to be completely devoid of fact or substance.  <smh> what's going on dude, you okay?

Let me start off by saying I've been doing radio in some fashion or form professionally since 1976 in a diversity of formats.

14 song infomercial?  What the hell radio station are you listening to for crying out loud? 

CMON people - doesn't anyone study facts anymore?  What won't get broken at local radio is LOCAL talent in MOST cases, but not all.  I'm here to tell you I've seen it done  repeatedly (at least here where I live .. ... a top 25 market area).

Religious radio of some kind dominates the dial.. with more stations committed to that format than any other - whether spoken word or music or some combination.

PunkSoda wrote: "Isn't broadcasting music people actually want to hear a better business model? Won't catering to people's tastes drive up the number of listeners and therefore raise on-air advertising rates? Why shut out newer music? Why only rotate a "14 song infomercial"? Electronic music never really had a mainstream terrestrial radio presence and now EDM's the hotest thing and no one can make money?

#2 is country... specifically modern pop Nashville based country.  Avg number of songs per library today is probably somewhere in the 1000 song title range.

Today, the largest share of the radio audience goes to News/Talk radio ...

The irony here is that there are more country stations, but news/talk, because it's concentrated in the major urban markets has the greater audience share nationally.  The next highest concentration of formats is Classic Rock/Classic Hits at about 1800 stations, followed by Sports.... however, Adult Contemporary stations maintain a larger market share 12+, primarily because of the heavy concentration of 25-44 women in major metro areas, and office listening since part of the AC spectrum is "soft rock" (easy listening pop etc).

Okay, so let's put music aside for a minute.  The reason for the broader diversity is simple, the greater the diversity of ownership, the greater the diversity of non-entertainment related information we get.  Diversity ownership set aside, the cost of owning and operating a single radio station is virtually cost prohibitive today, and local ad revenue is often insufficient to fund it, leaving radio economically viable if owned by companies that can leverage costs and draw national advertising. 

PunkSoda wrote: "Isn't broadcasting music people actually want to hear a better business model? Won't catering to people's tastes drive up the number of listeners and therefore raise on-air advertising rates? Why shut out newer music? Why only rotate a "14 song infomercial"? Electronic music never really had a mainstream terrestrial radio presence and now EDM's the hotest thing and no one can make money?"

The audience for EDM is too small for broadcast radio.  Broadcast radio is distilled the way it is because considerable research tells programmers EXACTLY the songs that most people want to hear respectively on any given music format.  Even for non-commercial based public/community radio you'd have a hard time getting enough EDM music fans tuned in to support more than a couple of hours a week financially - where that station would rely on membership contributions.  And then, only in some market areas. 

Anyway --- I agree with the senators.  We cannot afford any more consolidation in broadcasting... but increasing diversity is becoming a cost issue that I don't know how to solve.

P.S. At the height of Clear Channel's dominance in US radio broadcasting, they only ever owned 9% of the total stations in the US.

to unsubscribe.

Several commenters seem annoyed or even angry about this article. It is not that difficult to understand.

The basic premise of the article is: Some politicians think further consolidation of media broadcasters is a bad thing. Paul apparently agrees with this.

So it looks a little silly to post a lengthy and angry comment filled with facts and details and at the end agrees with the original article

forgive me for posting a long and detailed rant ... it's an age thing ;)   (some of us have grey hair and beards now)

Cool detailed rant :)