From: jwg@acd4.acd.com ( Jim Grey)
Subject: Re: AM Changes Hands in Cincinnati
Originator: wdp@gagme
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 08:24:37 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.080746.3862@gagme.chi.il.us> dem@meaddata.com (David
Myers) writes:
>
>
>   WKRC Cincinnati, 550 AM was recently taken over by Jacor
>Communications, who own WLW Cincinnati, 700 AM clear channel.
 <deletia>
>   Finally, a somewhat typical AM format resumed, except that the
>slogan/ID of the station is now "550 WLW" (it used to be "55 KRC").
>On the other station, the slogan/ID has always been "700 WLW", so
>they're apparently positioning the stations as sisters.  In fact, news
>reports on 700, which used to end with "... Newsradio 700 WLW" now end
>with "... Newsradio WLW", so they can run them on both stations.
 <deletia>
>   Legal ID's are interesting.  One I heard last night went like,
>"This used to be WKRC Cincinnati.  Now it's 550 WLW."  Sneaky.
 <deletia>>
>
>[Moderator's Note: Is it me, or has this multiple-station-ownership-
>in-same-market thing gotten a bit out of hand?  Now they are using the same
>calls! Geez.]


   
I was reading in, I think, FMQB Album Report the other day about one of these
multiple-station-ownership-in-same-market things Jacor is doing in Denver.
They own a classic rocker FM there.  They recently acquired another FM signal
there and put in a hard rocker.  All this to combat a leading crosstown AOR.
 
I have mixed feelings about these things.  (Aren't they called LMAs?  What the
heck does LMA mean?)  I think it's great that competition is allowed to be
freer, but on the other hand, I hate to see one company get a lock on a     
market's signals.  The small part of me that looks for conspiracy thinks that
it'd be entirely too easy for a company with the most buck$ to program itself
into dominance with a bunch of niche stations, thereby *eliminating* 
competition.
 
I hate to see legislated limits put on business... call me a conservative. 
But this, like so many other cases, is too much an opportunity for the biggest
companies to build a titanium-steel wall against competition.  And when that
happens, I fear that the stations' output will suffer because "what the heck
does it matter what we do, they've gotta listen to us anyway?"
 
[Moderator's Note: LMA means Local Market(ing) Agreement.  I am not sure if
that is what these are.  I always thought that LMA's were situations where
stations remained individually owned, and 'agreed' to share programming, but
I could be wrong.  As far as the multiple ownership thing, I agree with you,
Jim.  The biggest purses can control the market :-(. I always thought that a
good compromise would be to allow exixting licensees to buy up additional
same-service signals IF the new signal was a failing station and was on the
verge of going bankrupt and dark.  This would provide a safety net (isn't
that what the intent was anyway?) for failing stations and yet keep the
greedy conglomerate control-freaks at bay.  Call me reactonary, but in the
case of a limited-spectrum service, like radio, where there are only so many
available slots, it can only help the market to have a lot of DIFFERENT
forces at work, instead of different tenticles of the same octopus. ]


Peace,
jim grey
jwg@acd4.acd.com

Newsgroups: rec.radio.broadcasting