The Effect of Clear Channel Radio
Abby Berendt
Your eyes blink. You try to stay awake. You can win. You’ve played fair, and you’re
reaping in the benefits. You own Boardwalk and Park Place. It’s been a long
night, but you’re not going to give up. You will win. However, you’re not
playing a board game, you’re listening to the radio. Clear Channel
Communications has this oh, so familiar mentality. Awake since 1996, the
largest owner and operator of radio stations in the U.S. is playing a
competitive game of Monopoly.
Spending over $30 billion in the past two years, Clear
Channel now owns over 1,200 stations (Adler 2002). The next largest competitor,
Infinity Broadcasting Corp., owns 183 stations (Anderson & Lowery 2001).
The enactment of the 1996 Telecommunications Act deregulated radio, and allowed
companies to own as many as 8 stations in one market, a huge change from the
previous 40 station per company limit. Since 1996, Clear Channel has been in
the public eye--a notorious target of the music industry, business
professionals, station owners and citizens who feel radio has changed for the
worse. The issue is complicated, as many people desire different outcomes. It
is hard to please everyone when agendas are contradictory and needs are
conflicting. Clear Channel has changed
radio. Whether it is a positive or a negative change lies in the accessibility
of recording artists, the ears of the listener, the pockets of Wall Street, and
the minds of the reader.
How has Clear Channel Communications
changed radio, and why should you be concerned? Music is an important part of
our everyday lives. It relaxes us in a traffic jam, it empathizes with our last
break up, it pumps us up for a night out on the town, and it helps celebrate
the memorable moments. About 75% of students (ages 16-25) surveyed said they
discovered new artists by listening to the radio (Berendt
2002). Repetition and commercial overload were the top two complaints.
Therefore, radio possesses a huge responsibility in providing quality
programming and music selection to its listening audience.
Clear Channel (C.C.) has stirred up
numerous debates. Four main points need to be tackled when thoroughly examining
the current practices and changes C.C. has implemented upon radio. Globalizing
the product and creating more diversity are two of the positive issues. In
contrast, homogenization and monopolization are the concerns.
Globalizing the Product
When you’re away from home and want a
good meal, you know you can count on McDonald’s to provide that same menu of
hamburger goodness. It’s nice to know what to expect, and C.C. believes that
KISS FM will provide that same feeling of comfort. In an effort to jump-start
this vision, C.C. plans “to create a national
KISS brand in which stations share not just logos and promotional bits but also
draw from the same pool of on-air talent” (Wilde-Matthews 2002). Randy
Michaels, the chief executive of Clear Channel's radio division, says, "A
McDonald's manager may get his arms around the local community, but there are
certain elements of the product that are constant. You may in some parts of the
country get pizza and in some parts of the country get chicken, but the Big Mac
is the Big Mac. How we apply those principles to radio we're still figuring
out." The globalization of radio allows big, syndicated on-air
personalities (like Rush Limbaugh, Howard Stern, etc…) to be experienced by
listeners around the country. Voice tracking is a practice used by many
stations, where the DJ can pre-record their show in order to make it more
precise and clean. Mike Glickenhaus, a Clear Channel vice president in San Diego, argues that
voice tracking allows stations in smaller cities to hear these top radio
talents at low cost. He said that it's no different than television stations
airing Letterman and Jay Leno at 11:30 p.m. because they're better than
inexperienced local personalities (Dotinga 2002). This vision is becoming
reality, as C.C. now own more than 47 KISS stations in the U.S..
Diversity
Because
C.C. is so huge, it has the capability of experimenting on a higher level. The
FCC (Federal Communications Commision) previously felt that independent owners
would contribute to higher diversity. But after the Telecommunications Act of
1996, they state “too many independent owners
will go after the ‘greatest common denominator’ of programming to solicit the
most advertising, whereas a single owner will purposely create diversity to
avoid overlap and cannibalization” (Pomerantz 2002).
The founder of C.C., Lowry Mays, is “emphatic in his belief that Clear Channel
promotes more, not less, variety in radio programming” (Patoski
2001). Peter Gutmann, a Washington lawyer who defends
cases before the FCC, believes, "When you have one party that has lots of
stations, it can try niches or more experimental programming” (Pomerantz 2002). Many people have argued that the variety
of station formats has decreased since C.C. has ruled the airwaves. Yet, the
FCC found in its industry survey of 2001 that while the selection of formats
has decreased slightly in larger markets, it increased in the smaller areas (Pomerantz 2002). In Little Rock, Arkansas, the selection
has risen from eleven choices to fourteen. In the Atlantic City area it is up
from ten to fourteen selections. "There is no question in my mind that the
consolidation has increased the diversity of programming," Mays says.
"If we were a stand-alone operation, we would not be able to operate in
the diverse number of formats that we do today." Mays claims that the
success of C.C. is “based on running each of its divisions as a separate
entrepreneurial business unit under a centralized financial management
umbrella” (Patoski).
Homogenization
“I don’t know what it is, but things
have changed,” said Marika Krause, a 20-year-old CSU
student, responding to what she thinks about radio since 1996. “I turn on the
radio and hear the same five songs over and over again.” She also commented on
how commercials are “…so annoying, I pretty much just listen to CD’s now.” This
seems to be a common complaint among students who were surveyed. Can the blame
for this be placed solely on C.C? Of the individuals surveyed, four out of the
five most frequently listened to stations were Clear Channel Stations (Berendt 2002). Clear Channel dominates the top 40 format,
and controls 60% of rock-radio listening (Boehlert 2002).
Repetition of songs has been blamed on payola, in which
money or goods are exchanged for air-play. Although this is illegal, record
companies have found a way to ‘cut the corners’. Indies are hired as middlemen to get stations to play songs.
“Indies align themselves with certain radio stations by promising the stations
“promotional payments” in the six figures,” (Boehlert 2001). Once a song gets
added, the indie gets paid by the record label.
Though more than 30,000 CD’s are released each year, national radio playlists are slimming down (Kot
2001). The top stations add around 16-20 songs per week, and spin the top songs
more than 85 times each between the hours of 6a.m.-6p.m., Monday through Friday
(www.radioandrecords.com/charts/playlist.htm).
In addition, even though voice
tracking saves money, many argue that it takes away the essence and flair of
local radio. When DJ’s are syndicated, a listener has no chance of calling and
reaching a DJ to request a song. At promotional events, DJ’s aren’t at the
remotes (because they might live in another city), and therefore they cannot
meet listeners. “The thing that’s going to kill the radio industry completely
is that there won’t be any local heroes for kids in college and high school,”
said Mike Halloran, program director at San Diego
alternative rock station KFSD-FM (Dotinga 2002).
However, even if newcomers are inspired, voice-tracking is eliminating jobs,
while saving stations money.
Monopolization
Clear Channel has played the game
well. More competitive than any other company, C.C. has been able to dominate
the radio and entertainment industry. “Clear Channel is delivering the goods so
effectively,” Mays says, “that those eating its dust are not happy about it,” (Patoski 2001). Clear Channel owns SFX, an entertainment
company that hosts concerts and promotional events. Nobody In Particular
Presents (NIPP), a Denver concert promoter, recently sued Clear Channel in
federal court. NIPP accuses the company of “monopolistic and predatory
practices,” including claims that Clear Channel blocks other concert promoters
from properly publicizing their shows on Clear Channel’s radio stations
(Anderson 2001). Jesse Morreale, owner of NIPP, said
he bought radio ads for the Warped Tour to run on KTCL (Clear Channel), but the
station ran the spots at the wrong times or not at all. He said he tried to
promote the show with an on-air ticket giveaway but claims the station gave the
tickets to its employees. Morreale is not the only
one having problems with Clear Channel. They are the nation’s number one radio
chain, billboard owner, venue operator, and concert promoter. The company
receives $5.3 billion in annual revenues, has operations in 63 countries,
including some 1,200 radio stations, 19 TV stations, 770,000 outdoor ad
displays, and 135 live-entertainment venues (Anderson 2001). The mom-and-pop
stations just can’t compete on the same level. They don’t have the personnel,
the money, and the force to contest the Clear Channel Boardwalk and Park Place.
Conclusion
Monopoly: it’s a game most love to
play. And at the end a winner is a winner, and the competitors are left broke.
Is C.C. creating a globally diversified product or a homogenous, monopolistic
corporation? It’s a complicated issue, and a complicated game. But it’s going
to be a really long night before somebody gives up and somebody actually wins.
References: