Minority and Female Ownership in Media Enterprises
Arie Beresteanu and Paul B. Ellickson
Duke University
June, 2007
1
1 Introduction
Overview of main ndings & recommendations
This study examines the current state of minority ownership of media industries. Since
these are high prole industries, responsible for the dissemination of information to a large
fraction of the population, many people believe the federal government (and the Federal
Communication Commission (FCC), in particular) should play an active role in ensuring
equal access to these outlets. This study focuses on the Radio, TV and Newspapers markets
(henceforth the three industries) in the United States (U.S.). The goal of our analysis
is twofold. First, we examine the extent of female and minority ownership in these three
industries using data provided by the Census Bureau and the FCC. In particular, we provide
a direct comparison of these three industries with the broader universe of U.S. businesses,
as well as the population at large. Second, we make a few recommendations regarding how
the FCC should proceed in analyzing this important issue. We would like to emphasize
that, due to the nature and quality of the available data, we are not able to reach strong
conclusions, so our recommendations should be viewed more as points of discussion, rather
than a prescription for policy.
Summary of data analysis
 First, using the most complete data source available (the 2002 Survey of Business
Owners), we nd that minorities and females are clearly underrepresented in the
three industries relative to their proportion of the U.S. population.
 However, it should be noted that these patterns hold across the broad run of industries:
females and minorities are underrepresented in almost all industries in the economy
at relatively similar rates. These particular industries are not unique.
 While a full accounting of the causes of these systematic trends is beyond the scope of
thisanalysis, itappearsthataccesstocapitalisaprimarycauseofunder-representation
for minorities. Deeper analysis (with more data) would be needed to address the po-
sition of females.
 The data currently being collected by the FCC is extremely crude and subject to
2
a large enough degree of measurement error to render it essentially useless for any
serious analysis.
Recommendations
 The FCC should take steps to improve their data collection process. Strong eort
should be made to ensure a full, consistent and accurate reporting of ownership status
and its composition. This should be a long run endeavour.
 Currently, the FCC simply ags as minority or female owned any rm with greater
than 50% female or minority ownership. This information is maintained as a sep-
arate (and incomplete) spreadsheet that is not linked to the broad census of rms.
Instead, information on minority and female ownership should be carefully tracked
and integrated into the main rm database in a coherent fashion.
 In addition, rms should be classied not only by race and gender, but whether the
company is publicly traded or privately owned. Eorts should also be made to track
the demographics of minority as well as majority stakeholders.
 More broadly, the FCC should further examine the rationale behind this exercise. In
particular we recommend revisiting the following points:
Before considering potentially costly regulations aimed at changing the owner-
ship structure in these industries, the FCC should ask whether there are in fact
quantiable benets to increasing minority and female ownership. How exactly
will ownership policies aect change?
Recent evidence (e.g. Gentzkow & Shapiro, 2006) suggests that media content
is driven more by demand (i.e. consumer preferences) than supply (i.e. owner
preferences). If this is the case, how will change of ownership aect content?
What constitutes ownership? The debate thus far has focused on privately owned
companies and, within that category, on only the majority stakeholder. Does fair
representation require a controlling interest? If not, shouldnt we be tracking
ownership patterns below the 50% cuto? Isnt it the overall composition of the
rm that matters?
3
Furthermore, whatroledopublicrmsplay? Itisarguablethatpublicenterprises
are the most broadly representative of all. Unfortunately, little is known about
the role of this important and rapidly expanding segment.
Finally, how does the advent of non-traditional media (e.g. the internet) change
the debate? The proliferation of news, opinion, and information outlets available
on the internet is giving voice to an ever increasing range of viewpoints. This
suggests a novel and low cost method of ensuring that more voices have the
chance to be heard: subsidizing broadband access. The democratic nature of
information diusion via the internet is limited only by consumer access: not
everyone can cheaply connect. However, this problem is relatively inexpensive
to remedy, with little (if any) downside.
2 Data on Minority and Female Ownership Patterns
The most complete data source currently available for analyzing the status of female and
minority owners in the United States is the 2002 Survey of Business Owners (SBO), which
is part of the 2002 Economic Census. The SBO is a stratied sample of businesses with
receipts of $1000 or more, compiled from the universe of rms tracked by the Census and In-
ternal Revenue Service. The 2002 survey contains information on over 5:5 million non-farm
businesses with paid employees. Industries are classied according to the North American
Industry Classication System (NAICS). The data are tabulated by NAICS, processed by
the Census bureau, and made available in a variety of forms. The data we are using include
information at the 6 digit NAICS level on business from 18 two digit NAICS lines and
provide detailed information on the race and gender of business owners. Only rms with
paid employees are included. Business ownership is dened as having 51 percent or more
of the stock or equity in the business and is categorized by:
 Gender: Male, Female or equally Male/Female Owned
 Ethnicity: Hispanic or Latino or non Hispanic or Latino
 Race: White, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian,
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacic Islander
4
Note that business may be tabulated in more than one group, either because the majority
or sole owner reported more than one race or because a majority combination of owners
reported more than one race.
2.1 Analysis of the Census data
Table 1 presents a breakdown of rm ownership by gender. Firms are categorized as female
owned, male owned or equally malenfemale owned. The percentages reported are relative to
the universe of privately held rms, in order to minimize distortions created by dierential
rates of public ownership. For comparison purposes (and to illustrate this point), the raw
data are also presented in the appendix in Table 7. It is immediately clear that the share
of publicly held rms varies signicantly across these industries, causing the numbers in
Table 7 to reect both this dierence and the dierence in the shares by gender. Since we
are primarily interested in the latter, we focus on the information in Table 1 and leave the
compliment information for the appendix. We should note that the share of publicly traded
rms is an interesting area for future analysis, but emphasize that internal ownership in
public rms is hard to track. There are individuals who hold signicant shares in these
rms, but the majority of the equity is held by a large group of people whose identity and
inuence on the rm may be quite hard to precisely allocate.
Since the population of the United States is approximately 51.1 percent female, it is
immediately obvious that women are under-represented in every line of business. Across
all non-farm, privately held businesses with paid employees, women own only 17.74% of
rms, while men own 68.41%. Female ownership is strongest in the education sector and
weakest in utilities. Among the three lines of media enterprises under analysis here (Radio
Station, TV Stations, and Newspaper Publishers), women own 14.01%, 13.68%, and 20.56%
respectively, numbers which are broadly in line with the overall universe of businesses.
Therefore, whatever is driving these asymmetries is clearly systematic, not specic to these
particular industries. As noted above, the numbers reported in Table 7 in the appendix
show a much higher degree of variation, due to the dierences in the percent of publicly
owned rms. However, this does not change the broad conclusion that the three media
industries are basically in line with the broad universe of rms with regard to the status of
female ownership. Women are under-represented across the board.
5
Table 1: Ownership by Gender
NAICS Name % Female % Male % Equal
22 Utilities 10.58 75.72 13.70
23 Construction 7.32 79.84 12.84
31-33 Manufacturing 13.78 72.73 13.49
42 Wholesale Trade 12.88 73.78 13.34
44-45 Retail Trade 20.27 61.18 18.55
48-49 Transportation & Warehousing 12.34 70.22 17.44
51 Information 16.12 70.78 13.10
515112 Radio Stations 14.01 76.88 9.11
515120 TV Stations 13.67 79.18 7.15
511110 Newspaper Publishers 20.56 61.72 17.72
52 Finance and Insurance 15.07 76.08 8.85
53 Real Estate, Rental, Leasing 20.60 63.67 15.73
54 Professional, Scientic, Technical Services 19.09 71.82 9.09
55 Management of Companies & Enterprises
Administrative & Support & Waste 12.09 79.80 8.10
56 Management & Remediation Service 20.86 64.73 14.41
61 Educational Services 39.47 41.85 18.68
62 Health Care & Social Assistance 23.78 68.57 7.65
71 Arts, Entertainment & Recreation 21.21 62.74 16.05
72 Accommodation & Food Services 21.10 58.12 20.78
81 Other Services (except public) 22.70 61.35 15.95
All Non-Farm Businesses 17.74 68.41 13.85
6
Table 2: Ownership by Race and Ethnicity
Percent
NAICS Name Hispanic White Black AmInd Asian
22 Utilities 0.85 96.79 1.13 0.89 1.44
23 Construction 3.57 97.15 1.24 0.68 1.04
31-33 Manufacturing 3.57 94.57 0.72 0.48 4.09
42 Wholesale Trade 3.84 91.40 0.60 0.25 7.57
44-45 Retail Trade 3.60 89.55 1.22 0.42 8.58
48-49 Transportation & Warehousing 5.60 94.07 2.99 0.54 2.10
51 Information 2.82 93.04 2.07 0.40 4.33
515112 Radio Stations 3.71 93.29 4.35 0.17 2.27
515120 TV Stations 6.04 89.11 4.89 0.00 6.03
511110 Newspaper Publishers 1.58 93.50 2.44 1.00 3.24
52 Finance and Insurance 3.03 95.39 1.70 0.38 2.54
53 Real Estate, Rental, Leasing 2.40 94.90 1.04 0.26 3.56
54 Prof., Scientic, Tech. Svcs. 2.77 93.57 1.57 0.47 4.29
55 Mgmt. of Companies
56 Admin. Support & Waste 1.36 95.74 1.03 0.38 2.76
Mgmt. & Remediation Svcs. 5.50 93.27 3.38 0.63 2.61
61 Educational Services 3.55 90.60 3.10 0.65 5.25
62 Health Care & Social Assist. 4.14 85.88 4.14 0.44 9.20
71 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation 2.13 95.13 2.33 0.34 2.069
81 Other Services (except public) 5.11 89.07 2.28 0.45 8.16
All Non-Farm Businesses 3.85 91.32 1.82 0.47 6.21
Focusing next on the status of minorities, Table 2 provides the breakdown of ownership
by race and ethnicity for privately owned rms across all non-farm businesses with paid
employees. The reader should note that respondents could report more than one race, so
the percentages do not necessarily aggregate to 100.1 In the appendix, we again provide
the raw ownership breakdown for both private and public rms together (Table 8). Again,
we focus on privately held rms in order to isolate the demographic component. Focusing
in on the information categories that are the focus of this study reveals that ownership is
signicantly concentrated among non-minorities (whites) but, as with gender, the patterns
are not out of line with the economy at large. Again, whatever is driving these asymmetries
is not unique to rms in these three lines of business, it is an economy-wide phenomenon.
1About 2% of the overall census respondents self-identify as belonging to more than one race
7
Table 3: Demographics of the U.S. Population
Race Hispanic White Black Am. Ind Asian
% in population 13.40 69.40 12.68 1.22 4.41
For comparison, Table 3 provides the breakdown by race of the general population in
2002, using data from the U.S. Census website. Note again that the numbers do not sum to
100%, since individuals are free to self-identify as belonging to more than one race. It is clear
that business ownership is highly skewed towards non-minorities (white, non-Hispanics) -
only Asians own a share of the economy commensurate with their overall share of the
population. While Blacks make up 12.68% of the overall population, they own only 1.82%
of non-farm businesses. In the case of the three media industries analyzed here, Blacks own
a slightly larger share of these businesses than they own of the economy as a whole, but
still much less than their share of the population. Asians own a more than proportionate
share of TV stations, but are under-represented in Radio and Newspapers, while American
Indians own a close to proportionate share of Newspapers, but are under-represented in
Radio and Television. Hispanics are under-represented across the board but, as with every
other category, not more so in these industries than in the population of rms at large. As
is the case with female ownership, the data reveal that these three industries are not out
of line with the economy as a whole. Under-representation of females and minorities is an
economy-wide phenomenon, it is not industry specic.
2.2 Sources of Asymmetries
Since the observed ownership asymmetries are economy-wide, they are undoubtedly linked
to broad systematic factors. While some of this pattern may well be due to discrimination,
the most direct explanation lies in unequal access to capital (which may itself be rooted in
discrimination, or other long standing disadvantages). Why is access to capital important?
Many businesses require individuals to sink substantial nancial investments upon entry.
This is likely to be especially true in media enterprises, given the relatively high levels of
rm concentration. Table 9 in the appendix shows the shares of the top 4, top 8, top 20,
and top 50 rms in full set of industries for which we have data. The concentration ratios
in the information category and specically in Radio and TV broadcasting are very high.
8
Table 4: Family Net Worth (2004 dollars, thousands)
1989 1992 1995
Ethnic group Median Mean Median Mean Median Mean
White non-Hispanic 104.2 333.4 91.9 292.9 94.3 308.7
Nonwhite or Hispanic 9.8 92.1 15.8 102.0 19.5 94.9
ratio 10.6 3.6 5.8 2.9 4.8 3.3
1998 2001 2004
Median Mean Median Mean Median Mean
White non-Hispanic 111.0 391.1 130.2 520.2 140.7 561.8
Nonwhite or Hispanic 19.3 116.5 19.1 125.1 24.8 153.1
ratio 5.8 3.4 6.8 4.2 5.7 3.7
This is indicative of high barriers to entry, most likely in the form of capital requirements.
For example, even in Radio, where the capital requirements are arguably the lowest, basic
startup costs for a low power FM station are on the order of $160,000 for equipment alone.2
High power radio and TV are orders of magnitude more expensive. Thus, a key determinant
of media ownership is simply being able to aord it. This ability varies sharply by race.
So how much does access to capital vary by race? To answer this question we turned
to the Survey of Consumer Finances, which is conducted every three years by researchers
at the U.S. Federal Reserve (Fed). The Fed surveys about 4,500 U.S. households, asking
families about their personal nances, use of nancial institutions, income, pensions, and
additional demographic information. Since the industries we are interested in involve large
xed investments, the question of access to capital is paramount. The means and medians
by ethnic group are reported in Table 4.
Unfortunately, the racial breakdown used by the Fed is not as ne as in the SBO,
but it is still informative. In particular, we see that the average ratio of mean net worth
between whites and nonwhites during the period reported in Table 4 was 3.5 in 2004,
while the average ratio of median net worth between whites and nonwhites was about 6.6.
These numbers suggest that, in terms of access to personal capital, there is a great deal of
inequality across these groups.3 Coupled with the dierences in population, we can start
2For information on the basic equipment necessary to start a radio station, along with estimated costs,
see http://www.christianradio.com/sterling/enhanced.html.
3Of course, drawing on personal wealth is not the only way to nance a large project, individuals can
9
Table 5: Ownership Patterns (White vs. non-White)
Radio TV Newspaper All
Stations Stations Publishers Non-Farm
White 89.9 84 91.9 88.1
Nonwhite or Hispanic 10.1 16 8.1 11.9
Ratio 8.9 5.25 11.3 7.4
to understand why there is such skewness in ownership. The ratio of whites to non-whites
in the population at large is about 2.2 to 1 while the ratio of wealth is between 3.6 and 5.7
to 1, yielding an overall ratio of between 7.7 and 14.5 to 1. This means that non-minorities
have access to between 8 to 14 times as much personal capital as minorities. Based on this
alone, we would expect ownership rates to follow a similar pattern, which they in fact do.
Table 5 shows the ratios of white to non-white or Hispanic owners for the three industries
under analysis here, as well as the overall non-farm economy as a whole. We nd the ratios
are very much in line with the relative ratios of wealth, suggesting that access to capital is
indeed the primary factor driving the asymmetries of ownership among the races. This does
not in any way excuse this large degree of inequality, it merely identies its cause: non-
minorities control a much larger fraction of aggregate wealth than minorities, allowing them
to own a much larger fraction of businesses. Assuming that aggregate wealth is a strong
indicator of the ability to nance large commercial ventures, in order to change ownership
patterns we need to either change the aggregate distribution of wealth or otherwise increase
access to capital markets.
Unfortunately we do not have data on the dierence in access to capital by gender.
However, in an analysis of a more disaggregated tabulation of the SBO, Lowrey (2006)
nds that 1) business ownership is related positively to income and negatively to poverty;
2) these correlations are stronger for women-owned rms than for all rms. So access to
wealth may also explain the disparities we observe across genders. We should emphasize
that we do not have access to the type of data that would allow us to move much beyond
speculation. There have been large secular shifts in female workforce participation and
also turn to capital markets (e.g. small business loans or venture capital). However, several authors have
argued that minorities are signicantly disadvantaged when it comes to obtaining such funding (Bradford
and Bates, 2004).
10
Table 6: Changes in the Number of Minority Owned Firms - All non-farm businesses
Percentage Change
1982-1987 1987-1992 1992-1997 1997-2002
All 14 26 21 10
White 11 22 15 6
Black 38 46 33 45
Hispanic 73 76 36 31
Native American 46 310 93 2
Asian 72 46 48 24
educational status that are likely to have profound impacts on these ratios over time. This
is clearly an interesting area for future analysis.
We hasten to note that a more complete analysis of these patterns is clearly warranted as
much is missing from this simple analysis. For example, there are probably dramatic changes
occurring in both groups over time, as more women enter the workforce and minorities
accrue a larger proportion of aggregate wealth. Indeed, Lowrey (2006a&b) nds promising
trends in ownership percentages for both females and minorities across the 1997 and 2002
Economic Censuses. Table 6 shows the percentage change in the number of minority owned
businesses over time as reported by Lowrey. While growth of white owned rms has lagged
behind total growth, minority ownership has steadily ticked upward. The number of female
owned rms grew by 19.8% from 1997 to 2002. These are promising trends.
Unfortunately, all sources of available data only include information about majority
stakeholders. This is very limiting. A more appropriate metric would include shares based
on all of the claimants in the rm. To see why this is important, imagine a world made up
of rms that were all owned in exact proportion to the shares of racial groups in the overall
population. The data collected in the SBO would reveal that whites own 100 percent of the
businesses, since this survey only records the majority owner(s) of each rm. While the SBO
is not in fact subject to such an extreme bias (many rms are in fact sole proprietorships),
it is likely to overstate the share of rms owned by the largest racial groups and understate
minority ownership. Another limitation of available data is the lack of information regarding
rm sales. Everything we have reported here is based on rm counts, but some rms are
much larger than others (for example, in the economy at large, public rms account for just
11
2% of the total number of non-farm businesses, but over 60% of sales (Lowrey, 2006)). If,
for example, black owned businesses are smaller on average than white owned businesses,
the picture presented above would be incomplete.
However, the FCC is in a unique position to collect a complete census of the relevant
rms, along with their revenues. Currently, all of these rms are required to le FCC Form
323 upon change of ownership. While the FCC did provide us with information gathered
from this process, it was too incomplete to be utilized for any serious empirical analysis. The
problems with these data, which include missing variables, incomplete reporting, and poor
data management are addressed at length both in the appendix and in independent research
(Byerly (2006), Turner and Cooper (2006)). In addition, these data do not constitute a
random sample, as it only includes those rms whose ownership in fact changed. This
severely limits its usefulness to researchers, even if it were to be managed carefully. We
strongly urge the FCC to commission a full census of these key media industries, with
the goal of providing comprehensive data on the full ownership structure of every rm.
Moreover, careful thought should be given as to how rms should be classied. Under
the current system, rms only qualify as minority or female owned if a single person owns
at least 50% of the rm. It is not obvious that this is the most appropriate choice. For
example, it would be useful to know how much of the total industry (i.e. all stakeholders
in all rms) is owned by minorities or females, and how large, in terms of sales, each of
these rms is. This would provide a much more accurate picture of the diversity (or lack
thereof) of current ownership. The current data structure does not allow such a measure
to be constructed. The identity and share of publicly traded rms should also be tracked
over time.
3 Rethinking the Problem
In closing, we think it is important for the FCC to step back and consider the issue of
minority and female ownership from a broader perspective. What exactly are the benets
of having proactive policies to increase minority and female ownership of media enterprises?
Most of the existing literature on minority and female ownership patterns appears to take
it for granted that there are substantial benets to such policies. While it is certainly
true that an even distribution of ownership seems fairand that it might promote a more
12
balanced airing of voices, it is not at all clear that ownership restrictions are the best way
to achieve these goals. Since such restrictions certainly have costs (because they directly
impact competition), it is important to quantify exactly what the benets associated with
restricting ownership patterns might be. While tackling this issue is beyond the scope of this
report, it seems like an important rst step. Why might these benets not be so obvious?
For one thing, recent research suggests that media content is driven much more by demand
considerations (i.e. consumer preferences) than supply factors (i.e. owner preferences).
For example, in a careful study of the newspaper industry, Gentzkow and Shapiro (2006)
nd that newspapers appear to tailor their perspective to match what their subscribers
demand, rather than the particular leanings of ownership. In other words, conservative
newspapers oer a conservativeviewpoint and liberalnewspapers a liberalviewpoint
because that is what their subscribers prefer, not to further the agenda of a specic owner.
Moreover, they nd that the observed degree of media biasappears to be very close to
the prot maximizing choice. In particular, they construct a model of newspaper demand
which allows consumers to choose a newspaper that accords most closely with their own
point of view or taste. After constructing estimates of these tastes, they then solve for the
points on the viewpoint spectrumthat maximize prot and nd that the actual (observed)
points are very close to what their model predicts. In other words, the choice of viewpoint is
driven much more by a desire to maximize prots than to promote a specic agenda. Since
most every owner has the goal of maximizing prots, it is unclear what impact ownership
restrictions would in fact have. Would female or minority owners deviate from the prot
maximizing choice and oer an alternative viewpoint? The Gentzkow and Shapiro results
suggest not.
Second, it is not clear exactly what the ownership goals should be. Current policy
analysis (and data) focuses exclusively on majority ownership (e.g. the percentage of rms
where minorities or women have a controlling interest). This seems like an arbitrary choice.
Does an owner with a minority stake in the rm not have important inuence? If so,
shouldnt we be tracking and reporting the full breakdown of stakeholders?
Third, there has been little to no discussion of public versus privately held companies.
Publicly held corporations are arguably the fairest organizational structure of all, since they
must answer to a diverse set of shareholders. Of course, some individuals will have more
13
inuence then others (for example, Turner and Cooper (2006) nd that the vast majority
of radio stations with no controlling interesthave a white, non-hispanic male CEO or
president), but it is again di cult to make specic recommendations without taking a more
structured and systematic approach.
Finally, how has the development of non-traditional media changed the debate? More
and more people are getting news and information from non-traditional sources, the most
important of which is the internet. There are news sites, information sites, opinion sites, and
a wide array of blogscatering to almost every segment of the population. Consequently,
an ever increasing number of people and perspectives are gaining an active voice, along with
an extremely e cient means for connecting with an ever expanding audience. Moreover,
the entry costs for internet media sites are extremely low (essentially a computer and a
broadband connection), meaning that people who are interested in serving even the smallest
segments of the population can gain easy access to a broad platform. Whether they will in
fact be heard depends on whether people choose to listen. As such, the internet eectively
eliminates the capital requirements that limit entry into traditional media. The democratic
structure of the internet is limited only by consumer access: while it is extremely cheap
for suppliers of information to gain access to this powerful venue, not every consumer has
access to broadband internet. If the government is interested in maximizing the number of
voices that get heard (or at least have the opportunity to get heard), subsidizing broadband
access is a relatively cheap and eective method of doing so that has little (if any) downside.
14
References
Bradford, W. and T. Bates (2004) Venture Capital Investment in Minority Business
Working Paper: University of Washington.
Byerly, C.M. (2006) Questioning Media Access: Analysis of FCC Women and Minor-
ity Ownership Data, in Does Bigger Media Equal Better Media (Report), Social Science
Research Council and Benton Foundation.
Gentzkow, M. and J.M. Shapiro (2006) Media Bias and Reputation, Journal of Po-
litical Economy, 114(2), pp. 280-316.
Gentzkow, M. and J.M. Shapiro (2006) What Drives Media Slant? Evidence from U.S.
Daily Newspapers, Working paper: University of Chicago.
Turner, S.D. and M. Cooper (2006) Out of the Picture: Minority and Female TV
Station Ownership in the United States: Current Status, Comparative Statistical Analysis
and the Eects of FCC Policy and Media ConsolidationFree Press.
Lowrey, Y. (2007) Minorities in Business: A Demographic Review of Minority Business
Ownership, O ce of Advocacy: U.S. Small Business Administration.
Lowrey, Y. (2006) Women in Business: A Demographic Review of Womens Business
Ownership, O ce of Advocacy: U.S. Small Business Administration.
15
A Appendix: Additional Tables and Sources of information
A.1 Additional Census data
We include in the appendix additional information on ownership and on market composition
for the full set of non-farm businesses in the United States. This information is compiled
from the CensusEconomic Survey for 2002. First, we report the share of rm ownership
by gender, along with the total number of rms in Table 7. Firms are categorized as female
owned, male owned, equally malenfemale owned, or publicly held (or not classiable by
gender). Second, we report rm ownership by race for the same set of rms in Table 8.
The reader should note that the columns in Table 8 do not necessarily sum to hundred
percent, since respondents could report more than one race (about 2% of the overall census
respondents self-identify as belonging to more than one race). Also, the reader should be
aware that the numbers in Tables 7 and Table 8 are somewhat di cult to interpret, since
the fraction of publicly held companies varies widely from one industry to the next. The
Economic Survey also contains information about concentration ratios for various industries.
We report these ratios in Table 9.
A.2 The NABOB Data
The National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters (NABOB) collects information on
Radio (both AM and FM) and TV stations owned by African Americans. We were given
historical data for the years 1986, 1991, 1996, 2001 and 2006. The counts for the radio and
TV stations are summarized in Table 10. The counts for the earliest period 1986 are clearly
incomplete and we chose to omit them. It is reasonable to assume that the gures in this
table are subjected to changes in reporting and coverage.
The number of states in which there has been either a radio or a TV station owned by
an African American is 37. From 1991 to 2006 the number of FM radio stations reported to
be owned by African Americans has almost doubled, increasing from 74 to 138. The total
number of AM radio stations has uctuated during that period and had no clear trend. By
in large, both the rise in FM stations and the uctuations in AM station happened mostly
in a narrow set of states (GA, MS, OH, NC and TX). A closer look at the data reveals that,
16
Table 7: Ownership by Gender (Including Public Firms)
NAICS Name # rms Female Male Equal Public
22 Utilities 6,223 4.85 34.72 6.28 54.15
23 Construction 729,842 7.08 77.24 12.42 3.26
31-33 Manufacturing 310,821 12.85 67.82 12.58 6.75
42 Wholesale Trade 347,319 12.02 68.87 12.45 6.66
44-45 Retail Trade 745,872 19.53 58.95 17.87 3.65
48-49 Transportation & Warehousing 167,865 11.65 66.30 16.46 5.58
51 Information 76,443 14.18 62.26 11.52 12.04
515112 Radio Stations 3784 11.54 63.33 7.50 17.63
515120 TV Stations 1001 8.28 47.97 4.33 39.42
511110 Newspaper Publishers 5935 19.28 57.88 16.62 6.22
52 Finance and Insurance 241,120 13.48 68.04 7.91 10.57
53 Real Estate, Rental, Leasing 266,161 18.75 57.93 14.31 9.01
54 Prof., Scientic, Tech. Svcs. 727,893 18.32 68.91 8.72 4.04
55 Mgmt. of Companies 28,351 7.40 48.84 4.96 38.80
56 Admin. Support, Waste
Mgmt., Remediation Service 305,462 19.82 61.50 13.69 4.99
61 Educational Services 65,251 24.35 25.82 11.53 38.30
62 Health Care & Social Assist. 564,299 20.57 59.33 6.62 13.48
71 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation 103,824 16.20 47.91 12.26 23.64
72 Accommodation & Food Svcs. 434,441 20.05 55.24 19.75 4.96
81 Other Services (except public) 392,656 21.85 59.04 15.35 3.76
All Non-Farm Businesses 5,524,563 16.50 63.64 12.89 6.97
17
Table 8: Ownership by Race (Including Public Firms)
Percent
NAICS Name Hispanic White Black AmInd Asian
22 Utilities 0.39 44.38 0.52 0.41 0.66
23 Construction 3.45 93.98 1.20 0.66 1.01
31-33 Manufacturing 3.33 88.19 0.67 0.45 3.81
42 Wholesale Trade 3.58 85.31 0.56 0.23 7.07
44-45 Retail Trade 3.47 86.28 1.18 0.40 8.27
48-49 Transportation & Warehousing 5.29 88.82 2.82 0.51 1.98
51 Information 2.48 81.84 1.82 0.35 3.81
515112 Radio Stations 3.06 76.84 3.58 0.14 1.87
515120 TV Stations 3.66 53.98 2.96 0.00 3.65
511110 Newspaper Publishers 1.48 87.68 2.29 0.94 3.04
52 Finance and Insurance 2.71 85.31 1.52 0.34 2.27
53 Real Estate, Rental, Leasing 2.18 86.35 0.95 0.24 3.24
54 Prof., Scientic, Tech. Svcs. 2.66 89.79 1.51 0.45 4.12
55 Mgmt. of Companies 0.83 58.59 0.63 0.23 1.69
56 Admin. Support, Waste
Mgmt., Remediation Svc. 5.23 88.62 3.21 0.60 2.48
61 Educational Services 2.19 55.90 1.91 0.40 3.24
62 Health Care & Social Assist. 3.58 74.30 3.58 0.38 7.96
71 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation 1.63 72.64 1.78 0.26 1.58
81 Other Services (except public) 4.92 85.66 2.19 0.43 7.85
All Non-Farm Businesses 3.58 84.96 1.69 0.44 5.78
18
Table 9: Concentration Ratios by Industry
NAICS Name C4 C8 C20 C50
22 Utilities 46.67 61.78 78.47 89.73
42 Wholesale Trade 26.34 35.81 47.89 59.15
44 Retail Trade I 27.67 33.59 39.61 45.57
45 Retail Trade II 36.51 44.14 50.38 56.59
48 Transportation & Warehousing I 34.34 44.54 57.84 69.32
49 Transportation & Warehousing II 33.35 40.97 52.25 63.82
51 Information 46.09 57.86 70.84 80.43
515112 Radio Stations 47.0 55.5 67.9 75.6
515120 TV Stations 50.2 60.9 76.9 87.6
511110 Newspaper Publishers 31.9 44.1 61.1 77.5
52 Finance and Insurance 37.34 48.09 61.85 72.94
53 Real Estate, Rental, Leasing 32.56 38.62 45.52 52.96
54 Prof., Scientic, Tech. Svcs. 17.62 22.84 30.95 39.35
56 Mgmt. & Remediation Svc. 26.77 33.38 42.23 51.78
61 Educational Services 17.14 22.77 32.29 43.55
62 Health Care & Social Assist. 14.38 18.58 23.12 31.58
71 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation 20.80 27.84 38.60 51.78
81 Other Services (except public) 19.38 23.10 28.39 35.51
All Non-Farm, non-manuf. Businesses 27.57 34.97 44.29 53.57
19
in these states, the stations entering and exiting from the market are of religious content
and are owned by local clergy. The number of TV stations reported to be owned by African
Americans has remained just above 20, apart from 1996 where 34 TV stations have been
reported to be owned by African Americans. We have found no explanation for this outlier.
A.3 The FCC Minority and Female Ownership Data
The FCC provided us with two additional datasets pertaining to minority and female own-
ership. The rst was a spreadsheet containing every rm that submitted a 323 Form, which
is required whenever licenses change hands. This data was available for 2002-2005 for Radio
and Television, and for 2005 for Newspapers. These datasets appear to be relatively com-
plete, containing information on various operational and location characteristics of each of
the rms, along with the name of the ultimate parent company. However, these datasets
do not contain any information on race or gender. The race and gender information was
provided in a second set of spreadsheets, which simply listed the rms that were female
owned and the rms that were minority owned. In the case of minority ownership, the
specic race of the owner (or group of owners) was only identied about two-thirds of the
time. Moreover, many high prole minority-owned enterprises (e.g. Granite Broadcasting,
Radio One) are not recorded here at all. The myriad problems associated with this data
have been carefully documented by both Byerly (2006) and Turner and Cooper (2006). Un-
fortunately, the FCC does not appear to have done anything to correct the data collection
problems these authors identied. The data are summarized in Table 11.
The data provided by the FCC are clearly incomplete, resulting in relatively low percents
of minority and female ownership compared with the SBO dataset. Moreover, within the
ethnic groups, the classication to specic groups is not standard and is inconsistent in
many cases. Therefore, we chose to present minority ownership as one category without
breaking it to sub-categories. We believe that, in its current state, this data cannot be used
for any serious analysis. We recommend that the FCC take steps to ensure that a complete
census of media rms is carefully assembled so that ownership patterns can be accurately
reported and tracked over time.
20
Table 10: Radio and TV Stations Owned by African Americans)
2006 2001 1996 1991
STATE AM FM TV AM FM TV AM FM TV AM FM TV
AL 6 2 0 6 2 0 8 2 0 8 3 0
AR 2 3 0 1 2 0 2 4 0 1 3 0
CA 2 5 2 3 6 2 7 8 3 5 7 1
CO 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
CT 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
DC 2 3 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 3 3 1
FL 6 6 1 7 1 1 5 0 1 5 1 2
GA 7 14 0 4 4 0 9 6 2 8 6 1
ID 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
IL 3 0 2 4 0 2 6 3 2 4 1 2
IN 1 4 2 0 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1
IA 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
KS 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 0
KY 1 5 0 1 8 1 1 0 0 1 1 0
LA 2 8 0 4 6 0 3 3 1 4 2 2
ME 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
MD 2 2 0 2 2 0 4 3 1 1 1 0
MA 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 0
MI 2 5 2 3 6 2 4 8 3 4 6 1
MN 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1
MS 6 12 1 6 9 1 6 8 3 4 5 2
MO 1 3 1 2 2 1 5 2 1 5 2 1
NE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NJ 3 3 1 0 2 0 3 1 0 3 1 0
NY 3 2 2 3 2 3 4 3 2 4 4 1
NC 6 6 0 9 6 0 11 3 1 12 3 0
OH 13 15 1 7 12 0 5 4 0 4 4 0
OR 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
OK 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PA 4 4 0 4 3 0 8 2 1 5 3 0
SC 6 13 1 6 12 0 6 2 1 6 3 0
TN 2 1 0 5 1 0 6 6 0 4 4 0
TX 14 11 0 7 7 2 5 6 2 3 4 2
UT 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0
VA 7 4 0 3 6 0 9 3 2 10 3 2
WA 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0
WI 2 2 1 2 2 1 3 2 2 2 1 2
Total 105 138 22 94 111 20 129 91 34 111 74 24
21
Table 11: Ownership by Race and Gender (FCC Data)
Year Platform Number of Female Minority % Female % Minority
stations owned owned owned owned
2002 Radio 13,662 407 377 2.98 2.76
TV 1,739 27 20 1.55 1.15
2003 Radio 13,696 382 391 2.79 2.85
TV 1,749 28 16 1.60 0.91
2004 Radio 13,696 393 372 2.87 2.72
TV 1,758 27 17 1.54 0.97
2005 Radio 14,015 384 379 2.74 2.70
TV 1,778 27 17 1.52 0.96
22