From: rrb@airwaves.chi.il.us (r.r.b Moderator)
Subject: Re: Duopoly <was Re: Ownership of Multiple FMs>
Originator: wdp@gagme
Organization: Internet Radio Journal
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 22:53:38 GMT


Scott Fybush (fybush@world.std.com) scribbles;
Moderator's unreasonable opinions :->, are enclosed in [brackets];

I've been thinking this over at great length lately, as the Boston
market gets more and more consumed by duopolies.  In the last few
months we've seen:

[station descriptions deleted]

Boston is now the most-duopolied city in America.  And although I
despised the duopoly when it was first made legal, I'm starting to
change my mind.  Here's my logic:

Each individual radio station still needs more or less the same amount
of air talent to operate, no matter who runs it.  

[...]

In fact, in order to win FCC approval to buy Cook Inlet, Infinity sent a
letter to the FCC vowing NOT to run Stern on any of the Cook Inlet stations.

[Moderator: Interesting!  Although readers know that I have no use for Stern, 
it is troubling that licenses are granted based upon NOT carrying certain
programming.] 

As for consolidation of staffing, if that has any effect it will
not be to the creative/talent types, but to the front-office
salespeople and managers.  I can't see where the number of sales
or management jobs out there will affect the future of radio.

[...]

Another thing to remember: The listener doesn't know about a duopoly.
They listen to stations, not companies.  It's still in the duopoly
owner's interest to make EACH of their stations interesting to
listen to.  

I've been discussing the business end of the duopoly rule in e-mail
with Mark Guidotti, who has some points to make of his own as a
former "little guy" station owner...so maybe he can be persuaded
to post those.  Mark?

And as for BENEFITS to duopoly...well, here are a few:

[...]


2) Increased money to spend on talent.  If a station owner owns 5 stations 
   in one market and is profitable, that's 5 successful
   stations...where there might once have been 2 successful ones
   and 3 on the verge of failure.  

[Like I say below, I have no issue with the purchace of stations that are 'in
trouble']

I'd be interested to hear if anyone in a duopoly market can
cite any legitimate, verifiable negative effect so far from
the duopoly.

Scott

[Moderator's Note:  I cannot site "legitimate, verifiable negative effects"
as such, because formats are already so predicatable and generic anyway, and
duopoly is still quite new to the marketplace.  It just bothers me in a
certain illegitimate, non-verifiable way that media is becoming more and more
controled by a few large conglomerates.  When the FCC made the rules against
duopoly and set limits on media holdings, it was to assure a diversity in
management styles and, thus, programming.  Of course duopoly is a boon to
broadcast companies who can now pocket money from several directions at once.
 
However, once all viable and profitable broadcast properties are pretty much
bought up and divided among the few large corporations, it will be too late to
change the situation.  It is not like a newspaper or grocery store chain
which can (in theory at least) be competed against by an upstart offering a
better  deal.  Broadcast properties are a limited commodity and profitable
ones in large markets even more limited.  The effect of duopoly will be
dulled somewhat by the fact that creative and new  formats are rare anyway,
so the changes will not be as visible to the public who already is confronted
by the predictability of pigeon-holed formats. 

Bean-counter/programmers and their armies of consultants are pretty unwilling
to take format risks anyway. It is much safer to put a 'tried and true'
plug-in format of familiar music or tedius talk than to try something new.
Basically, duopoly IMHO like a cancer that is not visible until it's damage
is already done.  That damage will be the concentration of more and more
media power in the hands of fewer and fewer people.  Just one more nail in
the coffin of what was once a great frontier for creative minds. One more win
for the bean counters and one more loss for radio's creative side and the
listeners 
.  
I can already hear the voice of John Higdon telling me to get back to the real
world and smell the coffee.  I know that complaining about this duopoly thing
will not change the reality of it.  But it still makes me sad to see it
happen and in such an uncontrolled fashion.  I always thought that
multiple-ownership in a market should be limited to buying up stations which
are in trouble financially, as sort of a 'life preserver' effect to keep
stations from going belly-up.  This I would support.  But the current duopoly
situation is merely a way for the big to get bigger and for listener's
choices to get smaller.  I felt this way when satellite formats overtook
rural radio (Yes, Mark, I know they have their purpose and place) and now I
feel a similar way about this duopoly thing.  Not so much about the loss of
jobs, because Scott is right, the impact there will be minimal (as opposed to
the loss of jobs factor with satellites), I am concerned with the loss of
variety and the passing of the time when broadcasting was an art *first*, and
a business second.  I even miss the days when the two ideals were basically
equal.  Now-a-days radio is a business first, middle and last and what comes
out of our speakers is basically nothing more than what's needed to attract
the mice to the trap.  Listeners are catagorized, numbered and fed their daily
dose of mediocrity.  With fewer providers, that situation is only going to
get worse. 
  
Let's say Mc Donalds, Burger King, Taco Bell and Jack-In-The-Box bought up
all (or most) existing restaraunt licenses in a city and that there was a
freeze on any new restaraunt licenses.  So those fast-food companies dictated
the type, quality and price of food in virtually every restaraundt in town. 
Let's say you did not like the Mc Donalds run restaraunts.  Sure, you could
go to the Burger King or Taco Bell chains, but most of the real choice would
diminish.  Duopoly is. IMHO, quite similar to that scenerio.  

So talk all you want about how nice it is for broadcasters and how the
listeners don't know any better... I, for one, do not like it.

[Disclaimer: I have the utmost respect for the professionalism of John
Higdon, Mark Guidotti and Scott Fybush even though we differ on this (and
probably other) issue(s). Bill]

William Pfeiffer
Moderator - rec.radio.broadcasting - Internet Radio Journal
To submit articles send them to rrb@airwaves.chi.il.us
To subscribe, send e-mail to journal@airwaves.chi.il.us
Newsgroups: rec.radio.broadcasting