January 13, 2004
Clear Channel attempts to get a clue

Evil megacorporation Clear Channel is trying to convince critics that it's not hopelessly out of touch with the markets that it "serves":

In a move to tune into what its critics are saying, radio giant Clear Channel Communications on Monday announced the creation of a local advisory board for San Antonio and other cities nationwide.

The first board will kick off next month in San Antonio, where the company is based, and will be made up of critics, music makers, community leaders, and heads of local businesses and charities.

"Local-community and customer sentiment have always played an enormous role in our decentralized business model, and we continue to believe our industry leadership in local market research is an important reason for our business success," Clear Channel Communications President Mark Mays said in a news release.

Through the advisory boards, Mays said, Clear Channel hopes to help its managers identify local market needs, concerns and opportunities, and quickly address them.

Clear Channel also plans to begin meetings in the next few months in Cleveland and Sarasota, Fla. Local management from the company's radio, entertainment, outdoor and TV divisions will run and participate in the boards.

So, like, am I a hopelessly idealistic dreamer, or is this the sort of thing they should've been doing all along? You know, giving the customer what they want and all.

The advisory board announcement comes a few weeks before the Federal Communications Commission is set to meet in San Antonio to discuss how local media is serving its audiences. The hearing will be from 5:30 to 9:30 p.m. Jan. 28 in City Council chambers and is expected to draw a large crowd.

FCC Chairman Michael Powell is to attend the meeting with Commissioners Kathleen Abernathy, Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein. Clear Channel executives are expected to speak at the hearing.

Coincidence? I think not.

Posted by Charles Kuffner on January 13, 2004 to Music | TrackBack

Unfortunately, I'm starting to think the problem is they ARE giving the customers what they want. Not all of us, mind you, but a profitable majority.

The same with Nashville.

I can rail about it (and do), and extol the virtues of the Thrift Store Cowboys or Randy Rogers or the Dead End Angels or the Asylum Street Spankers.

But many more people seem to prefer Shania Twain and Kenny Chesney, and want to hear them on the radio.

Then there's a flip side, where "community" sentiment sometimes turns a station like KPFT from great music back to Lunatic Left Radio. What can ya do? :)

Posted by: kevin whited on January 13, 2004 7:40 AM

Kuff, I suggest checking out DIY Media, he does a good job of keeping up with FCC news. Really into the pirate radio side of things, and, well, there's nothing wrong with pirates.

Posted by: Kriston on January 13, 2004 8:44 AM

there's this thing called the market. you might want to look into it. it tends to result in products, services and price points for which there is a profitable demand.

Posted by: abelard on January 13, 2004 2:49 PM

There's also this thing called "oligopoly", which is when there's insufficient competition in a market, which results in inefficiencies.

Posted by: Charles Kuffner on January 13, 2004 3:10 PM

and what potentate gets to decide what level of competition is "insufficient?" and when the results of market competition are "inefficient?" government action against "oligopolies" is merely the fascist expression of the idea "i can't win in the market place, so i believe i will obtain the result i want at gunpoint." i propose a very broad definition of fascism, including all persuasions that hold that the state is more important than the individual, and include herein communism, nazism, the fascism of mussolini, clintonism and the fascism of franco. fascism, regrettably, is not confined to either the right or left wings, and seems to be ineluctably bound up with the human failing that makes the leap from "i believe it would be good if i did X" to "i believe i will force all my neighbors to do X."

dude, if you don't like clear channel, don't listen to it, and urge everyone you know not to listen to it.

Posted by: abelard on January 13, 2004 7:32 PM

Abelard's inability to grasp simple non-crony economics is stunning. CC is part of an old-fashioned oligopoly. There is a very limited amount of airspace - that happens to belong to the American people - not Lowry Mays or Rupert Murdoch.

Trust me, I have a degree from the Phil Gramm School of Economics at College Station -with an excellent GPR I might add! I sometimes miss the days when I got to run circles around knuckleheaded conservatives like Abelard!

Oh, and BTW, Clinton signed the horrible communications bill that has allowed Mays and his ilk to run their oligarchy - so get your 'istas right Abelard!

Posted by: Smirking Chupacabra on January 14, 2004 12:03 PM

smirking simply reinforces the point i made--statists like him define as any market place result they disapprove of, and them seem in many cases to be unable to resist using the state's power of armed coercion to suppress these market place results, substituting some market place result they do approve of.

i don't dispute that Clear Channel could be fairly described as an oligopoly, but i say, so what? you, sir, seem to be unable to grasp the circularity of your argument: oligopolies are bad, CC is an oligopoly, therefore CC is bad, and i suppose you mean the badness of CC to stand for proof that oligopolies are bad.

this is the only circle you seem to have argued around me.

Posted by: abelard on January 15, 2004 2:05 PM

in my previous post, i wrote the phrase "very bad word" preceded by a less-than sign and followed by a greater than sign, after "...statists like him define as". for some reason, this phrase was not included in my post.

Posted by: abelard on January 15, 2004 3:00 PM

in my previous post, i wrote the phrase "very bad word" preceded by a less-than sign and followed by a greater than sign, after "...statists like him define as". for some reason, this phrase was not included in my post.

The answer to that is that since my comments render HTML tags, anything that looks like a tag, which is to say anything within angle brackets, gets rendered. If what's there is invalid HTML, it disappears. Try square brackets or curly braces next time.

Posted by: Charles Kuffner on January 15, 2004 3:45 PM

what is the İnsufficient competition?

Posted by: canan on March 6, 2005 10:55 AM