Showing posts with label radio consolidation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label radio consolidation. Show all posts

Monday, July 13, 2009

FMC's Kristin Thomson Talks Indie Access on Mediageek Radioshow


On Tuesday, July 9, FMC's Kristin Thomson — author of "Same Old Song," FMC's latest report(s) on indie music on the airwaves, gave an interview on the Mediageek Radioshow.


Mediageek is a weekly half-hour syndicated public affairs radio show covering grassroots and independent media, as well as the policy, laws and economics that affect our ability to communicate freely and accurately. The program is hosted and produced by Paul Riismandel at WNUR 89.3 FM on the campus of Northwestern University in Evanston, IL, and is heard throughout Chicago and the northern suburbs.


Kristin talked about "Same Old Song: An Analysis of Radio Playlists in a Post FCC-Consent Decree World" — a data-driven study that analyzes radio playlists from 2005-2008 to determine whether the policy interventions resulting from the recent payola investigations have had any effect on the amount of independent music played on terrestrial radio. FMC recently released the New York State-centric edition of the report, which can be seen here.


Listen to the Mediageek interview with Kristin here.

Wednesday, April 29, 2009

FMC Releases "Same Old Song" Playlist Analysis Report



Have you ever been scanning through the music rags at your local bookstore/music retailer/coffee emporium/tchotchke outlet and wondered, “why do I never hear this band that’s on the cover of all of these magazines on my local radio station?”

We’ve scratched our heads about this, too.

There are quite a few independent acts out there that are successful by pretty much any other measure — they sell out venues, play Saturday Night Live, can be heard on movie soundtracks, TV shows and commercials yet never seem to crack commercial radio playlists. After a while you start wondering if there’s a reason. Turns out there is – it’s just sort of complicated.

But don’t worry — FMC lives to sort this stuff out. To that end, we’ve just released a major new study of what gets spun on radio called “Same Old Song: An Analysis of Radio Playlists in a Post FCC-Consent Decree World.” Before we get into the results of this data-driven report, let’s look at some of the history. (If you wanna dive in, click here).

“Same Old Song” analyzes radio playlists from 2005-2008 to determine whether the policy interventions resulting from the recent payola investigations have had any effect on the amount of independent music played on terrestrial radio. Back in 2007, Federal Communications Commission issued consent decrees against the nation’s four largest radio station group owners – Clear Channel, CBS Radio, Citadel and Entercom – as a response to collected evidence and widespread allegations about payola influencing what gets played on the radio. In addition to paying fines totaling $12.5 million, the station group owners also worked with the American Association of Independent Music (A2IM) to draft eight “Rules of Engagement” and an “indie set-aside,” in which these four group owners voluntarily agreed to collectively air 4,200 hours of local, regional and unsigned artists, and artists affiliated with independent labels.

Using playlist data licensed from Mediaguide, FMC examined four years of airplay – 2005-2008 – from national playlists and from seven specific music formats: AC, Urban AC, Active Rock, Country, CHR Pop, Triple A Commercial and Triple A Noncommercial. FMC calculated the “airplay share” for five different categories of record labels to determine whether the ratio of major label to non-major label airplay has changed over the past four years.

Guess what? The number crunching indicates almost no change in station playlist composition the four years we examined. Specifically, the national playlist data showed little measurable change in airplay share from 2005-2008, with major label songs consistently securing 78 to 82 percent of airplay. There was a slight increase in airplay for indies on a few formats (Country and AAA Non-Commercial, in particular) but otherwise the data from year to year stayed pretty much the same.

But we didn’t just look at these big meta trends — we dug in and also examined airplay by release date. This showed that many formats leave only small portions of their playlist for new material, with current songs sprinkled in among well-worn hits. While such programming choices might make sense for a given station’s target audience, the outcome is that there are very few spaces left on most airplay charts for new music. Looking specifically at airplay for new releases, we found that new major label songs typically receive a higher proportion of spins than new indie label songs. Finally, we looked at the indie labels themselves, and found that only a handful have enough resources and clout to garner airplay consistently. For the remainder of indies, airplay is infrequent and modest, if it happens at all.

The fact that indies are still having a tough time getting airplay is something a recent survey of A2IM independent label members indicated in a more anecdotal way. The major labels’ built-in advantage, combined with radio’s risk-averse programming practices, means there are very few spaces left on any playlist for independent labels, which comprise some 30 percent of the domestic music market. Remember, this is after well-intentioned (if nonspecific) attempts to address this imbalance.

So what’s the take-away? How might the situation between radio and indies be improved? Our new report offers a handful of policy recommendations that might prove useful to the FCC’s oversight of the airwaves and improve the radio landscape for both listeners and the broader music industry. In particular:

1. Improve Data Collection

The radio and music industries participate in and employ some of the most robust and timely data monitoring systems available. There are private companies that measure audiences, that keep track of radio ownership transactions, market share and revenues, that track retail sales and box office grosses, and at least three services that monitor what is being played on commercial and noncommercial radio. Many radio stations, music labels and advertisers subscribe to these services so they can get up-to-the-minute information about their own activities, and those of their competitors.

In other words, radio stations are already very data rich. What’s now required is the political will and organizational capacity at the FCC to determine what questions need to be asked, how frequently, and of whom, and then to seek out or collect the information it needs to be an effective regulator. Nonprofit organizations like FMC have been conducting much of this oversight work on behalf of the public interest, but clearly the FCC needs to play a greater role. The FCC could acquire data from commercial sources, or it could request data from stations as part of their responsibilities as broadcast licensees, or some of both. Regardless of the method, the FCC needs to clarify its oversight role, then rigorously and consistently monitor what’s happening in radio in order to craft more effective policies and enhance accountability.

2. Refocus on Localism

Both anecdotal and empirical evidence indicate that commercial radio has become a risk-averse media that employs cookie-cutter formats across many radio properties. In recent months, commercial radio has also been the source of layoffs and downsizing as it struggles with both reduced ad revenue and huge debt loads racked up during the station buying spree following the passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act.

The radio industry is clearly in crisis. Stations have lost touch with their local markets, but unfortunately, the industry seems to have responded by pushing for greater consolidation and syndication. FMC believes this is the wrong way forward, as radio’s chief advantage in the modern media landscape is “live and local.”

We join others in the media reform movement – and many in the radio industry itself – in calling for commercial radio to regain its local foothold and build programming in which serving its local community is its primary goal. We also simultaneously call on the FCC to revisit the localism proceeding and design clear guidelines about how to measure whether its licensees are honoring their obligations to the communities in which they operate.

We know that locally oriented programming isn’t as cost-effective as running a station using pre-programmed playlists and automated DJs, but it is radio’s strongest asset in an increasingly saturated media environment. FMC and our partners have engaged in pilot projects with small commercial operators to determine best practices for engagement between programmers and the independent sector to set goals and identify mutually beneficial marketplace solutions, and we hope that these projects help us to convey information that other stations can use in the future.

3. Expand the number of voices

This report also shows us that major swaths of the music economy aren’t currently represented on commercial radio. It outlines the many structural barriers to airplay for all types of labels, but for independent musicians in particular. Using other metrics to measure the profile of some indie artists, including retail and digital sales, TV appearances, large live shows, and licensing deals that place their songs in movies, video games and in ads, the lack of airplay on commercial radio for the same artists seems counterintuitive. Independent music belongs on commercial radio and is just as vital as the music currently receiving heavy airplay. Changing the prevailing culture at commercial radio will take a concentrated effort with all parties working in good faith basis; identifying structural barriers to airplay in this report represents part of this ongoing effort.

Finally, this also moment in time when the government can make a conscious effort to expand the number of broadcasters in this country. The passage of legislation to allow Low Power FM in more American towns and cities would provide local groups and organizations with an opportunity to serve their communities.

Feel free to let us know what you think!

Friday, April 17, 2009

Clear Channel Gets Local. Sort Of. Maybe. Not Really.



Yesterday, Clear Channel sent out two press releases that seemed to contradict each other on some pretty fundamental levels. The first described a "commitment" to a "higher minimum level of service" in the communities in which its stations operate."

There's also a passing bit about "an expanded programming commitment to music from local artists." If you listen to commercial radio, you're probably familiar with stations' graveyard shift local music programs, many of which start at midnight on Sunday. Artists heard on these slots rarely, if ever, make it to regular programming. Does this mean that Clear Channel stations will start slotting local music at other times of day, say, drivetime? Will they also start to spin more indie content? It's tough to tell from this press release.

The second announcement from Clear Channel actually talks about making their programming less local. Yep, it's all about syndicated content — but local stations will be able to choose which syndicated content they want from pre-defined packages. "Local Clear Channel Radio program directors will have total choice and flexibility in choosing the Premium Choice programming elements. They can elect large portions, single pieces, or none of the offered programming. All of the Premium Choice elements were determined in full consultation with the company’s most experienced and trusted programming and operations managers." Lucky them!

Ex radio industry honcho Jerry Del Colisano does a typically good job in describing the cognitive dissonance of these dual releases over at his Inside Music Media blog.

The bait-and-switch that Clear Channel is trying to sell to the public is basically this: we cut back local programming and at the same time announce an empty shell that it touts as increasing local public service programming and outreach. . .

. . .As we said a few weeks back, Clear Channel has a plan in place to make sure there is a warm body on duty at every studio site -- looking ahead to possible FCC objections to turning their local broadcast licenses into a network that has basically nothing to do with the local city of license. Is this what a license has become -- a license to steal local radio stations from the public airwaves?

It's clear that the massive consolidation in station ownership that followed the 1996 Telecommunications Act has been a disaster, both as a business plan and as a means to serve local communities. But Clear Channel's answer to the problem has thus far looked like more consolidation and automation, with a bone or two thrown at localism.

FMC has issued two studies that look at the effects of consolidation on commercial radio: 2002's Radio Deregulation: Has It Served Citizens and Musicians? and 2006's False Premises, False Promises: A Quantitative History of Ownership Consolidation in the Radio Industry. We're also about to release a new report that examines playlist composition on commercial stations to determine whether broadcasters are programming more indie content following the "Rules and Engagement" and Voluntary Agreements that came out of the payola investigations of 2003-2007. (No, we can't tell you the results just yet, but just sit tight — it's on its way!)

One thing we can say: if commercial radio isn't living up to its localism obligations and presents significant barriers to indie artists, then we need non-commercial alternatives. And getting more Low Power FM stations in American towns and cities is an important step.

Next week, LPFM advocates from around the country are coming to Washington, DC to demonstrate their support for local radio. At noon on Thursday, April 23, there will be a Policy Briefing on LPFM on the Hill — room 5456 of the Rayburn House Office building, to be precise.

Thursday’s briefing will feature opening remarks from Representatives Michael Doyle and Lee Terry — co-sponsors of The Local Community Radio Act of 2009 (H.R. 1147), introduced in February 2009.

Immediately following is a panel discussion with LPFM producers and policy advocates who will explore the legislation’s potential impact on emergency preparedness, media ownership and arts and cultural broadcasting. Moderated by Parul P. Desai, Vice President of Media Access Project, the panel features singer-songwriter Nicole Atkins, Liz Humes of WRIR-LP in Richmond, VA, Erubiel Vallardes of KPCN-LP, in Woodburn, OR and Cheryl Leanza of United Church of Christ.

That same day, there will be coordinated visits to Congressional offices and the FCC by community radio supporters of all stripes. Sharing information and having some fun is part of what community is all about.

For more information on Low Power FM, check out our fact sheet. And support community radio!

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

FCC Gets its Data On?



This morning, FMC staff attended an "Open Agenda" meeting at the Federal Communications Commission that outlined steps the agency would take to expand broadband, determine competition in the video marketplace and collect data on female and minority ownership among broadcast station owners.

If there was one theme to emerge from the meeting, it was the need for the agency to do a better job of collecting and analyzing data on the industries it's charged with regulating. (This is something many public interest groups — including FMC —have been saying for years.)

"If we're to be a data-driven agency, we need to do a better job of collecting the data," said acting Chairman Michael J. Copps. "Right now, we don't have a clue." He described the past several years at the agency as "a period of benign — or to some, not so benign — neglect," stating that timely and efficient data collection is crucial to effective policy.

Members of the FCC leadership often speak publicly about the agency's commitment to promoting "localism, competition and diversity" on the public airwaves, so it was good to hear Copps describe how the FCC could add meat to those worthy bones. Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein echoed this sentiment, saying that better methods of data collection and analysis is "someting I've been begging for for years."

The Commissioners were speaking specifically about a national strategy for getting affordable broadband to more Americans, and the need to ensure diversity in the broadcast media landscape. But we at FMC think it applies to music, too, which is why we've spent so much time examining the nuts and bolts of the commercial radio marketplace to determine whether it serves communities, artists and the listening public.

Having observed trends in terrestrial radio since the turn of the millennium, we realize two things: a) consolidation in station ownership after the 1996 Telecommunications Act has led to a loss of independent owners and local control over programming decisions at commercial stations, and b) pay-for-play schemes like payola have made it incredibly difficult for non-major label talent to score commercial radio play. (For more info, check out these FMC research reports, past and present: Radio Deregulation: Has It Served Citizens and Musicians?, False Premises, False Promises: A Quantitative History of Ownership Consolidation in the Radio Industry, the Payola Education Guide and "More Static: Independent Labels and Commercial Airplay.")

We also understand the importance of quality information to the agency responsible for overseeing the broadcast industry. Without it, there's really no way to measure the effects of public policy. Groups like FMC do our best to fill in the gaps — our anticipated playlist tracking report that looks at indie spins on commercial radio comes out on April 20 — but there's no replacement for having an independent agency like the FCC collect and anylyze their own data. We hope today's meeting is a step in that direction.

As Copps himself said today, "We can't make fact-based decisions without timely, reliable data." In other words, data rocks.

Friday, January 16, 2009

Kevin Martin Resigns From FCC



Current Federal Communications Commission Chair Kevin Martin just announced his resignation from that agency, which wasn't entirely unexpected. Martin will step down on Inauguration Day (January 20), and then join DC-based nonpartisan think tank the Aspen Institute.

Martin's predecessors at the FCC — Democrats Reed Hundt and William Kennard and Republican Michael Powell — were each Aspen Institute Fellows following their tenure at the Commission.

Martin's leadership of the FCC was sometimes controversial, particularly in matters relating to media ownership and the regulation of the cable industry. Yet many found Martin's stint to be less troubling than that of his immediate predecessor Michael Powell, who unsuccessfully pushed for further deregulation of media, including radio. FMC worked alongside other groups in both the 2003 and 2007 media ownership proceedings to hold the line on radio station ownership, urging the Commission to uphold its stated commitments to localism, competition and diversity on the dial.

It was recently announced that Julius Genachowski has been chosen by President-Elect Obama to head the FCC. A tech-policy veteran, Genachowski will likely have different views than Martin on key issues like media ownership and net neutrality.

To learn more about how changes in the policy landscape could impact the music community, check out our third D.C. Policy Day — which takes place at the National Geographic Society in Washington on February 11, 2009. Musician scholarships are available — click here for more info!

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Payola and Indie Access to Commercial Airwaves




As part of our ongoing work to improve the state of terrestrial radio and create more opportunities for artists to reach potential audiences, FMC has worked closely with the American Association of Independent Music (A2IM) — a group that represents a broad coalition of independent labels — to determine whether independently-released music is reaching the commercial airwaves.

Having observed trends in terrestrial radio since the turn of the millennium, we realize two things: a) consolidation in station ownership after the 1996 Telecommunications Act has led to a loss of independent owners and local control over programming decisions at commercial stations, and b) pay-for-play schemes like payola have made it incredibly difficult for non-major label talent to score commercial radio play.

While consolidation still remains a problem, attempts have been made to curb payola. In 2003, then-New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer launched an investigation into whether the nation’s biggest radio chains were participating in payola. The answer was a resounding yes. Spitzer uncovered blatant pay-for-play arrangements, including major label inducements and a corrupt system of middlemen (independent promoters) who acted as gatekeepers to commercial programming. (You can read some of Spitzer’s published evidence here, or learn more about the history of payola and the NY AG investigations in our Payola Education Guide.)

While Spitzer's probe resulted in consent decrees and the collection of over $30 million in fines from the four major labels, it was up to the FCC to complete the investigation on radio stations. In March 2007, the FCC decided to settle with the four largest radio station groups that had been accused of engaging in payola – CBS, Citadel, Clear Channel and Entercom. Although the agency was successful in collecting small fines from the station group owners and implementing consent decrees, the FCC resisted calls for oversight, leaving no means through which to guarantee implementation or compliance. So, the independent music community – led by A2IM and FMC – helped implement a separate set of voluntary "Rules of Engagement" with the broadcasting chains. The hope was to create the conditions for a more productive relationship between the indies and the major broadcasters.

So where are we, some 18 months later?

A new survey of A2IM label members conducted by investigative journalist (and former FMC Communications Director) Justin Jouvenal found that indie labels are still having difficulty getting airplay on commercial radio.

A2IM sent out a 42-question survey to its label membership, which asked about whether their relationship with commercial radio had changed over the last year. The report, which was released on October 20, 2008, at an A2IM-sponsored roundtable discussion in New York City, revealed near-unanimous sentiment among label owners; little has changed over the last year and a half, with 92 percent of label respondents describing their relationship to commercial radio as “the same” as before the Consent Decree and Voluntary Agreements. You can see the press announcement here; read the report here; and download the full report with appendices (PDF) here.

FMC continues to research, analyze and document commercial radio play to better understand if and when independent music is played on corporate radio. At the same time, we continue to push for and support non-commercial and Low-Power FM as an alternative to the homogenized sounds heard on commercial stations. We also believe that, for terrestrial radio to be viable in the 21st century, it must reaffirm its commitments to serving the communities in which it holds licenses. In other words, it needs to think, program, and act locally. In this way, we hope to rebuild the vital connections between listeners, artists, labels and programmers so everyone can benefit from the public airwaves.

For more information on radio issues, visit our articles and research pages.

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

The Effects of Media Consolidation on Urban Radio — Part I

Here's the first installment of an excellent article by hip-hop writer Eric K. Arnold that examines the effects of media consolidation on the urban radio format.

Arnold is an authority on this subject; his recent cover story for SF Weekly, “The Demise of Hyphy,” looked at the role of commercial stations in local communities and the impact they have on music and culture. The article has sparked a great deal of conversation in the Bay Area and beyond. (A full author bio can be found at the end of the post).

This piece gives an overview of how urban radio came to be, and shows that the hip-hop community has not been spared the negative effects of media consolidation — including a loss of localism and diversity on the dial. We're really excited to be able to publish it here in a handful of installments. So, without further ado:

The Effects of Media Consolidation on Urban Radio — Part I
By Eric K. Arnold

Urban Radio: What It Is and Who’s Down
Let’s cut to the chase: urban radio sucks. You know it, artists know it, and programmers know it too. It offers little room for creative programming, tends to favor established artists at the expense of new voices, and kills any halfway-decent song that does manage to land in rotation by playing it as much as three times an hour. Most of all, urban radio sucks because it rarely meets the needs of the local community from which its listeners are drawn. Commercial stations and their advertisers are more than happy to have passive listeners who don’t complain about programming decisions. But the truth of the matter is that people have a right to demand greater accountability from their neighborhood stations. Since all broadcasters use the public airwaves, they need to honor their responsibility to serve the public interest. Urban radio is no different, yet its lack of localism is even more appalling since stations often market themselves as being informed by street-derived culture.

Generally speaking, urban radio is defined as programming whose primary demographic targets people of color living in urban areas. This listenership is often broken down into three somewhat overlapping market segments based on age: Hot Urban” (12-24); “Rhythmic AC” (18-34); and “Urban AC” (25-49). Hot Urban stations tend to spin current rap and contemporary R&B, while Urban AC stations rarely play much rap, preferring a mix of vintage soul and R&B with more recent neo-soul and R&B. Rhythmic AC stations fall somewhere in the middle: typical stations in this category program for both younger and older listeners, so playlists include contemporary artists as well as older, “heritage” acts.

Urban Radio is a multibillion-dollar industry controlled by a handful of large media conglomerates which program the majority of the genre’s stations across the country. To a large extent, the industry’s current state is the result of media consolidation. Over the last twelve years, independently-owned commercial stations have become a rarity, while corporate radio has become the norm.

Where once innovative program directors broke new music by emerging artists and DJs sought out hot local talent, today’s urban radio has become standardized and formulaic. National playlists and a reliance on market research have made DJs little more than button-pushers with limited say in what records get aired. Pressure to attract and maintain the widest possible market share has resulted in Music and Program Directors choosing commercially-established, major label artists over idiosyncratic or developing acts. In this ratings-driven climate, radio that actively meets the needs of the community — whether it be public-affairs shows or programming featuring local artists — has fallen by the wayside. The net result is that the average listener has fewer choices, especially when it comes to hearing local music.

“There is a need and a desire on behalf of listeners for local music on local radio stations,” says Davey-D, an air personality on community station KPFA and Internet station Breakdown FM. Davey spent a decade at San Francisco Bay Area commercial radio at KMEL — the #1 urban station in the nation’s #4 market. Despite demand for diverse and local content, “radio stations around the country have no desire to play local artists unless local artists are connected to major labels or major independents,” Davey says.


Who Jacked the Playlist?
The passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 irrevocably altered the landscape of commercial radio. Supporters of this legislation claimed it would invigorate radio, but it actually had the opposite effect. The bill eased FCC-mandated restrictions on ownership, meaning that several stations in the same market could now be owned and operated by the same company. It also continued a trend away from community-oriented broadcasting, which began during Reagan administration. (In 1981, officials did away with the “ascertainment” process, jettisoning requirements that required commercial stations to determine and meet the needs of local communities.)

In the five years following the 1996 Telecom Act, a frenzy of consolidation essentially eliminated independent black radio. Locally-owned and African-American-operated stations were bought out by the dozens and reprogrammed as “urban” stations by national conglomerates. Previously, DJs, Program Directors and Music Directors were able to play music of their own choosing. Since ’96, market researchers and consultants have determined playlists, eradicating a once-proud tradition of supporting neighborhood talent. As Davey-D notes, “This was a rude awakening with respect to local music.”

In 1997, following KMEL’s purchase by Chancellor Media, Program Director Michelle Santosuosso wrote an open letter to PDs in other markets detailing how the station went from a “mom and pop” operation to being owned by a “massive media company” which also owned 100 other stations, including KMEL’s main competitor. In this industry climate, she noted, “balancing the commitment to musical integrity with the pressures of big business ratings demands is increasingly difficult.”

A decade later, her statement seems truer than ever. KMEL’s current parent company, Clear Channel Communications, owns not 100 stations, but well over 1,000. Yet Clear Channel is only one of a handful of companies which own the majority of radio stations in America and are thus in a position to dictate or restrict content as they see fit.

Urban radio programming has become stagnant, alienating many hip-hop heads who once listened religiously to mix shows. According to Bobbito Garcia — former co-host of “The Stretch Armstrong Show,” a New York college radio program known for featuring unsigned hip-hop artists — “It’s become national radio, not urban radio.” The effect of consolidation, he says, is that “artists started making music not for the audience, but for the radio.”

In today’s urban radio market, the sound has become increasingly formulaic. “Real hip-hop sounds weird,” says Julio G., who pioneered West Coast hip-hop radio at KDAY 20 years ago. Julio, who’s credited with breaking Eazy E., says that disc jockeys themselves no longer have the opportunity to champion new music. “I started with a passion to find the best record,” he says. “Why do I gotta be just another guy playing [chart-topping MC] Plies?”

Matt Sonzala, the author of the Houston So Real blog and the hip-hop booker for Austin’s annual SXSW conference, remembers the early days of Texas hip-hop radio well. He recalls hearing local artists like the Geto Boys and UGK on The Box 97.9, who “blew up because they had support in their own city.” Sonzala claims that, despite Houston’s storied history as a breeding ground for rap music, the only local artists getting any sort of commercial radio action these days are those already signed to major labels.

Like Houston, Atlanta’s urban radio stations were also once known for supporting homegrown artists, whether unsigned, indie or major. Recently, however, a PD who had heavily supported local rappers was let go, and “the scene changed,” says Wendy Day, the founder of artist advocacy group Rap Coalition. Day has firsthand experience building acts through neighborhood word-of-mouth. Before moving to the ATL, she lived in Chicago and New York, where, a decade ago, she worked records for Twista and Do or Die out of Chi-town. Back then, she says, radio was loathe to take on “hard” rap: “we could not get our records played on radio.” Instead, she notes, “we blew it up on the street.”

Street culture is by definition different than corporate culture. Radio, she points out, “is definitely a business. It doesn’t play music to reach people or move a culture. . . its job is to sell ads.”

From a corporate perspective, it’s easier to streamline playlists from media market to media market than to develop entirely separate charts for each station playing a particular format. Yet a playlist for a commercial urban station can contain as few as 300 songs – a tenth of what the average listener has on his or her iPod. This approach often leaves listeners and artists alike grumbling about the exclusion of local or independent talent.

The lack of concern for the needs of the community has not gone completely unnoticed, however. In March 2008, Kansas City alt-weekly newspaper The Pitch reported that despite a wealth of local talent, the region has yet to produce a nationally recognized hip-hop act. According to reporter Nadia Plaum, “Many local artists blame KC radio, complaining that the city doesn't have a station committed to pushing hometown music on regular rotation.”

Some in Government have commented on the negative impact of media consolidation on the public airwaves. In November 2007, during the sixth and final hearing on media ownership, FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps reportedly said, “Did you even notice the FCC is always ready to run the fast break for Big Media, but it’s the four-corner stall when it comes to serving the public interest?”

The Commissioner was specifically referring to the likely granting of expanded cross-ownership agreements for TV stations and newspapers, but media is an extremely trend-focused industry, so further consolidation in any sector of mass media would likely affect all segments of the industry.

Stay tuned for the next installment of this article.

About the Author:

Eric K. Arnold has been writing about urban music culture since the mid-1990s, when he was the Managing Editor of now-defunct 4080 Magazine. Since then, he’s been a columnist for such publications as The Source, XXL, Murder Dog, Africana.com, and the East Bay Express; his work has also appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle, Vibe, Wax Poetics, SF Weekly, XLR8R, the Village Voice and Jamrock, as well as the academic anthologies Total Chaos and The Vinyl Ain’t Final. Eric began his journalistic career while DJing on college radio station KZSC, and remembers well the early days of hip-hop radio, before consolidation, and commercialization set in. He currently lives in Oakland, California.

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Radio Robots to Help Indie Artists Get Airplay?



We found an interesting article in the latest edition of Wired about a new system for indie acts to deliver tracks to radio stations that rely on automation to manage their playlists. Well, it's not a new system, exactly — major labels and commercial radio have been using it for years.

As Wired scribe Eliot Van Buskirk writes, "indie musicians have been at a disadvantage when it comes to delivering music to larger stations. . . because the major labels use something called Digital Media Distribution System (DMDS) to send new tracks to stations digitally and securely (to minimize leaks)."

That's not the only reason indie musicians have had difficulty getting on the corporate airwaves. Payola, both institutional and in-your-face, has made it near-impossible for anyone but the best financed (and ethically compromised) musicians and labels to breach the commercial radio wall. Even when compelled by the FCC to air independent acts, massive radio conglomerates have tried to require artists to sign away their rights to digital royalties in exchange for airplay consideration. FMC exposed such behavior by Clear Channel in a series of blog posts last year.

According to Wired, a company called Yangaroo (which also services major labels) is now offering an indie-centric version of its DMDS technology. The general understanding is that most folks at commercial radio are loathe to open padded brown envelopes, so digital delivery could result in more spins for the indies.

That's the theory anyway.

FMC is working on a Payola Education Guide that will help musicians understand the historical context of this disingenuous practice, and offer advice about what can be done about it. We're also busy tracking playlists in order to determine which stations are playing indie music and how often. So stay, um, tuned.

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Why Radio Sucks (According to Wired)

The latest issue of Wired has a short, one-page article called "Why Things Suck: Radio." We're guessing it's a part of a series, but we can't remember having ever seen it before. We're probably too fixated on their "What's Inside" column, where you can find out about all the bizarre stuff in everyday consumer products.

But let's get back to radio and suckiness. The piece does a fair job of itemizing the reasons the commercial dial is often devoid of actual entertainment. Public (airwaves) Enemy Number One? Profit-hungry conglomerates like Clear Channel:

The biggest barriers to building a radio audience are the polarizing power of music and the plethora of choices on the dial. So, when corporations like Clear Channel started buying up stations in the late '90s, they set about building a lowest-common-denominator product that would be attractive to the most listeners. "There's this idea of the perfect playlist," says Jesse Walker, author of the radio history Rebels on the Air. "Find it with research and attract the perfect audience." But it turns out that the most lucrative audience is really just "people who will not change the channel during the ads." The result: watered-down programming designed primarily not to offend.

FMC's 2006 Radio Study takes an in-depth look at this very phenomenon. But there is some hope for more diverse FM radio. In October, the FCC opened up a licensing window for non-commercial, full-power stations — the opportunity of a lifetime. Check out the first in a series of posts from FMC Full Power Project Manager Mike Janssen for an up-close look at the process.

Tuesday, November 6, 2007

Radio Daze



They say you better listen to the voice of reason
/ But they don't give you any choice 'cause they think that it's treason. . .

-Elvis Costello, "Radio, Radio"

In the course of doing some internal research here at Future of Music Coalition, we rediscovered a fantastic article by John Nova Lomax, which ran in Houston Press back in January. The piece is all about how the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 resulted in the appalling homogenization of the commercial airwaves.

In the story, Lomax lays bare the tactics through which the National Association of Broadcasters claims diversity on the dial. FMC Executive Director Jenny Toomey is quoted heavily:

I called Jenny Toomey, director of the FMC (and an excellent musician), to see if she could answer the NAB's claim. Turns out she can -- most of those "new formats" they tout are just fresh applications of lipstick on the same old pigs. "This is something we identified a long time ago -- all of the data that was used to try to show that consolidation had led to more diversity was simply them thinking up new format names. It's very easy to thin-slice the exact same pie of songs under different names. We all know that 'active rock' might have very similar songs to 'classic rock.’"

The article is downright pissy in regards to the wasteland that is corporate radio. It also happens to be right on.

In related news, the NAB continues to oppose the public performance royalty for sound recordings, calling it the “performance tax”. In response, the MusicFIRST Coalition sent the NAB a dictionary and told them to look up the definition of tax. Clearly it’s not a tax, but the NAB has employed the word as a way to sully this debate. Calling it a tax also give members of Congress some fake comfort in voting for something that would retain the NAB’s exemption from paying a performance royalty that is currently paid by all of the NAB’s competition -- webcasters, satellite radio, cable TV and non-interactive music subscription services. Why is the NAB, the most established of all these mediums, still getting music for free, when all the other radio-like services compensate musicians, songwriters, publishers and labels?

Remember, the terrestrial public performance right (which already exists in 75 other countries) ensures that performers and also get paid a small royalty when their song is played on the radio.

This is tremendously important for jazz, classical and country artists who often perform works by other composers. The establishment of a public performance right in this country would mean that when you hear John Coltrane's unmistakable rendition of “My Favorite Things,” not only would songwriters Rodgers & Hammerstein receive a royalty, but also Coltrane -- or at least their respective estates. This seems pretty fair to us.

Yet the NAB routinely cries poor in this debate. Surely they can afford to pay the artists, even considering radio's ever-diminishing revenues. Maybe the NAB should stop complaining about competition from internet and satellite radio and focus more on diversity? Terrestrial radio is killing their golden goose by not focusing on the medium's built-in localism. Satellite radio is mandated not to do community-oriented broadcasting, and the internet is simply too big. But your old-fashioned FM stations have an incredible opportunity to offer diverse programming. Why don't they? Because greedy media monopolies emboldened by consolidation are only interested in aggregating the broadest possible demographics to increase ad revenue.

By the time they realize their folly, it'll be too late. Radio — once a great public vehicle for information and entertainment — will have one the way of the dodo.

For more info, check out FMC's 2006 Radio Summary. We've linked to it a lot over the last couple of weeks, but it's just that good.

Monday, November 5, 2007

Consolidation Indignation



Late last Friday afternoon, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin announced the sixth and final hearing on media ownership, to take place in Seattle on November 9. As was the case with the October 31 hearing on localism in D.C., Martin has given the public precious little time to prepare. This once again calls into question his commitment towards considering public opinion. Of course, citizen sentiment regarding consolidation is almost entirely negative. But that's no excuse for ignoring concerns.

Is it all just a charade? Check out what FCC Commissioners Copps and Adelstein have to say:

A hearing with only five days notice is no nirvana for Seattle and the Pacific Northwest. This smells like mean spirit. Clearly, the rush is on to push media consolidation to a quick and ill-considered vote. It shows there is a preordained outcome. Pressure from the public and their elected representatives is ignored. With such short notice, many people will be shut out. We received notice of the hearing just moments before it was announced. This is outrageous and not how important media policy should be made.

And they're not the only government figures peeved by Martin’s rush to change existing rules. Following Senators Lott and Dorgan's joint press conference, Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Inouye decided to hold a hearing on November 8 -- the day before the Seattle affair. The topic du jour? Localism, which Martin no doubt thought he'd put behind him with the Halloween hearings. Guess the topic just won’t stay, ahem, buried.

Word on the Hill has it that Martin is planing a vote for sometime in December. It remains to be seen whether Congressional pressure will have any effect on his push for rule changes. One thing is certain, at least according to the general public: further consolidation will have an incredibly negative effect on the FCC's stated goals of competition, localism and diversity.

Need more proof? Check out FMC's 2006 Radio Study and its corresponding Executive Summary. Watch an interesting video report on consolidation from PBS' Bill Moyers.

Visit the Senate Commerce Committee website for the the live webcast of Thursday's hearing on localism.

Details on Friday's public hearing on media ownership in Seattle:

Date: Friday, Nov. 9, 2007
Time: 4:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.
Location: Town Hall Seattle, Great Hall
1119 Eighth Avenue (at Seneca Street) Seattle, WA 98101

Swing by StopBigMedia.com for more info.

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Merge on the Hill


Yesterday's Senate Commerce Committee hearings on "The Future of Radio" covered a surprising amount of ground -- everything from media ownership, to localism, to webcasting royalties. In fact, there's so much to talk about that we've created two blog posts. (This is the second!)

Senators aside, the hearing had some real star power in the form of witness Mac McCaughan — longtime rocker and co-founder of Merge Records. (You know, the 20 year-old North Carolina label with acts like Arcade Fire and Spoon?) McCaughan spoke clearly and eloquently about how non-commercial broadcasting in its many forms has made a major difference not just on his business, but also in his personal development.

“As a kid I went to sleep and woke up to the radio in an era when even on album rock radio the DJ was playing his or her favorite new records,” he said. “Then at the age of 12, college radio exposed me to music that I had never heard on top 40 or album rock stations. The music I discovered then set me on the course of making music myself and starting a record label. And since that time, as both a performer and a label owner, I have relied on radio as an essential component of the work we do helping audiences learn about our music.”

McCaughan talked about the importance of diversity, competition and localism in radio, urging Congress to “take action to allow for the growth of non-commercial radio, and the expansion of Low Power FM into more urban settings.” Certainly Senator Dorgan was in agreement — he’d earlier suggested holding official proceedings to deal with the FCC’s recent movements towards changing laws regarding media ownership, which would have an extremely negative impact on the non-commercial radio that McCaughn and so many others cherish and rely on.

“I want to urge this committee to take the necessary steps to ensure that our media landscape does not become even more consolidated,” McCaughan said. “The deregulation that followed the 1996 Telecommunications Act allowed for unprecedented consolidation in commercial radio, which has resulted in a homogeneity that is often out-of-step with artists, entrepreneurs, media professionals and educators — not to mention listeners.” Check out FMC's 2006 Radio Study for extensive documentation on the effects of consolidation.

But what about the internet? Although there was plenty of discussion about online royalty structures, the important issue of network neutrality was not explicitly examined. McCaughan made plenty of room for the topic in his written testimony, but due to time constraints, didn’t get the chance to fully speak his mind about the subject. Still, he stressed that “labels and artists should have the benefit of competing on an equal playing field,” stating that “Any policy decision that enables the reestablishment of old bottlenecks or creates a tiered internet would be a step backward.” FMC's ongoing Rock the Net campaign is a great way for bands and artists to get involved in the fight for net neutrality.

Much of the focus of the hearing remained on radio, although its actual definition was at times unclear. In his opening statement, Senator Inouye waxed nostalgic for simpler times: “I suppose radio isn’t as sexy as the internet,” he offered. “But I remember growing up on it, back when it was local.” Senator Snowe, who talked about the decline of local stations in her home state of Maine and asked questions pertaining to broadcast diversity, echoed Inouye’s comments about localism. FMC has published a media ownership factsheet that should help clarify these issues. While you're at it, check out our low-power FM factsheet for info on other community radio possibilities.

It’s definitely encouraging to know that many of our representatives are concerned about diversity, competition and localism in radio. And it’s doubly great that Mac McCaughan would take the time to offer his perspectives on these issues in the very place where they most need to be discussed.

Watch McCaughan's testimony (and the rest of the hearing) here.

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Media Ownership Rules — A Narrow Window?

Back in 2003, the FCC tried to change regulations concerning corporate ownership of media outlets. Then-chairman Michael Powell wanted to alter the rules without taking into account public opinion. Suffice it to say, there was unprecedented resistance in the form of citizen feedback, the bulk of which was decidedly negative. FMC collected and analyzed data on the public comments; the report can be found here.

Well, it’s happening again. The FCC just doesn’t seem to get it. When they previously attempted to change the rules, it resulted in serious blowback from the House, Senate and Third Circuit Court. Sure, there are more public hearings scheduled this time around, including one in Washington next week, for which the venue has still yet to be determined (!) But these hearings may be entirely superfluous in the eyes of current Chairman Kevin J. Martin.

A recent article in Condé Nast’s Portfolio magazine confirmed what many have come to suspect: Chairman Martin is aiming to limit the timeframe in which dissent can be registered.

“FCC commissioner Kevin Martin learned a lot from his predecessor's ill-fated attempt at media ownership deregulation. Above all, he learned that the public hates the idea of further consolidation -- so if you want to push through rules allowing it, you have to do it while no one's looking.”

And the New York Times even deemed the story worthy of front page treatment. In their reporting, FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein calls Martin’s timetable “awfully aggressive.” Possibly provocative, definitely true.

According to Dow Jones, Martin hopes to schedule the rule changes vote for December 18. This ensures not only a narrow window for dissent, but also a particularly distracting season in which to discuss the issues.

Check out this must-see clip of Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) engaging in his own brand of protest:



Other Senators, including Barack Obama, have also registered their displeasure with the FCC’s tactics.

FMC has long opposed radio consolidation, because it severely limits musicians' odds of getting airplay.

Instead of focusing on further deregulation, shouldn’t the FCC be working towards enhancing localism, competition and diversity in all media?

Thursday, October 11, 2007

Coming soon: new life on an old medium


The dearth of musical variety on the airwaves these days is much bemoaned and well documented. In 2002 an FMC study provided early evidence that the deregulation of the radio industry had resulted in less musical diversity among stations, a situation that hadn't changed much by 2006. So it's no wonder that frustrated music lovers are turning off their radios and plugging in their iPods, flipping to satellite radio or taking refuge in the blissfully eclectic world of webcasting. But don't give up on old FM radio just yet. It could soon welcome a wave of sonic innovators.

Today, for the first time in seven years, the Federal Communications Commission will accept applications for FM radio stations in the noncommercial band. That's the lower end of your FM dial, 88.1 to 91.9 MHz, where funky college stations and refined public radio affiliates rub elbows. There's lots of room around the country for even more noncommercial stations, and at long last the FCC will award broadcast licenses to lucky nonprofits — particularly those proposing local services. This summer FMC has been working with the Radio for People coalition to help audio artists, activist groups, cultural nonprofits and other wannabe broadcasters join the party.

Competition for the noncommercial spectrum is expected to be stiff, though we're cheered by the FCC's Oct. 10 decision to limit the number of applications it will consider from any one organization (PDF of the Public Notice). And it will be several years before recipients of licenses get their stations on the air. But when our efforts pay off, FM radio will bring listeners a wider range of musical genres — folk, jazz, classical, indie rock, world music and more. Stay tuned.

Photo by takomabibelot.

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Clear Channel's Greatest Hits: How Clear Channel rules the airwaves and why it’s bad for indie musicians


As we wrote about yesterday and in previous weeks, Clear Channel is attempting to strip indie artists of performance royalties in order to be considered for airplay on its stations.

As part of a settlement with the FCC following an investigation into payola allegations, Clear Channel and other major broadcasters agreed to air 4,200 hours of local and indie programming. Clear Channel set up a page on its stations’ web sites that allowed indie artists to submit their music for airplay, but required them to check a licensing agreement that waives the artists’ performance rights.

Incredibly, Clear Channel has responded to allegations of payola by instituting a new type of pay-to-play; the system means artists are trading something of value – their performance royalties – for consideration for airplay. It’s simply payola under a different name. The arrogance is astounding, but speaks volumes about the power the nation’s largest broadcaster wields and why it’s bad for indie musicians.

To fully understand why Clear Channel is attempting to strip indie artists of performance royalties, it’s important to understand the company’s rise to power as the nation’s largest broadcaster and its primary motivation – selling ads, not making great radio.

"We're big. We're bad. We're back. We're rich," bragged former Clear Channel chief Randy Michaels to the Cincinnati Enquirer.

Clear Channel’s ascent came faster than Wal-Mart’s. Clear Channel owes its dominant position to an obscure clause in the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which eliminated a provision that had previously capped the number of stations any one company could own at 40 nationwide.
What followed was an unprecedented era of consolidation in radio. After the elimination of the national ownership cap, radio station owners went on a buying spree, with Clear Channel growing from 40 stations to over 1,200 in less than five years. Since then, the chain has decided to go private and sell hundreds of stations, but still remains the biggest player in the broadcast industry.

The Telecommunications Act and subsequent ownership consolidation had a significant impact on the kind of radio we hear today. As FMC’s 2006 study “False Premises, False Promises” demonstrated:

 Just fifteen formats make up more than 75 percent of commercial airplay.
 Important genres such as jazz, bluegrass, folk and new rock have little presence on the commercial dial.
 Individual stations in the same format owned by the same chain have strikingly similar playlists. In the case of Clear Channel stations in the same format, playlists overlapped on about 55 percent of songs.

As entertainment lawyer Michael Guido told Frontline about the state of consolidated radio:

“In the early days of the music business, the record business, you could find a DJ in Cleveland, like Alan Fried, or in Buffalo, who would fall in love with a record, start playing it, people would react to it, and you could start a record off that way. It's much more difficult to do now with two or three conglomerates controlling all the radio formats.”

That’s largely because you can’t find the local DJ anymore at Clear Channel stations. To fatten its bottom line, Clear Channel embraced the now infamous practice of “voice tracking,” beaming programming prepared by a DJ in a centralized station to stations across the country, and programming playlists regionally. The result: homogenized track lists and the elimination of hundreds of local DJs familiar with musicians in their local music scene. If Clear Channel really cared about artists – especially indie and local ones – it wouldn’t eliminate its primary contact with them.

Rather, Clear Channel’s motivation has always been the dollar, as employees have attested.

“The ‘Cheap Channel’ nickname really fits because that’s the bottom line; they don’t care about their employees,” a Clear Channel employee told Salon in 2001.

Clear Channel has also advocated for record labels to directly pay for airplay of songs – the ultimate triumph of money over music. For years, airplay was determined by a type of payola system. Records labels paid independent promoters to promote certain records to radio stations. The promoters would in turn pay radio stations annual fees and give them perks if they added the songs to their playlists. Clear Channel’s plan would have cut out the middle man.

A columnist at the Houston Press summed up Clear Channel’s position on selling airtime to the highest bidder:

“In the days of truly competitive radio, most stations would have avoided such an arrangement because of the loss of credibility it brings…. The prevailing school of thought at Clear Channel appears to be that radio stations are mere supermarkets, with airtime a commodity to be bought and sold like shelf space. In this view, songs are commercials for the CDs that carry them.”

It’s also important to understand the relationship between big radio conglomerates and major record labels: they reinforce each other. There are more radio stations on the American radio dial now, and yet space on the airwaves has become scarce. This is partly because some formats are programmed so narrowly and partly because some formats with different names overlap considerably in terms of their programming choices. Fewer and fewer songs reach the charts, due to the predominance of “crossover” hits. This increases the cost of promotion for musicians as it becomes more expensive to capture the attention of program directors. Musicians need more resources than ever before to break through the radio redundancy to get on commercial radio forcing them to seek out major label deals.

In the self-reinforcing structure we have described, music industry resources benefit a small number of musicians. Radio stations play songs by a smaller number of musicians. A few “winners” among musicians reach the top and make a great deal of money, but the dominant players like Clear Channel get paid either way while having have shut out many other musicians from both major labels and radio. It is hard to see how Clear Channel is "really on the side of artists."

Monday, May 7, 2007

Before the Music Dies in Philadelphia tonight

Just a quick reminder that tonight (Monday, May 7), the Philadelphia Chapter of the Recording Academy is hosting a screening of the documentary Before the Music Dies. The movie tells the story of American music at a precarious moment when just a handful of companies dominate the radio waves and the retail racks. Filmmakers Andrew Shapter and Joel Rasmussen traveled the country, hoping to understand why mainstream music seems so packaged and repetitive, and whether corporations really had the power to silence musical innovation. Widely-praised and award-winning, the movie includes interview lots of musicians, industry folks and fans.

After the screening, FMC's Kristin Thomson will join in a panel discussion on the effects of radio consolidation, changes to the music industry and artist development with director Joel Rasmussen and Marcy Rauer Wagman, Director of Drexel University's Music Industry program.

Venue: International House, 3701 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA
Doors: 6:00 PM
Movie: 6:30 PM
Panel: 8:00 PM

Admission is $10 for Grammy members and $15 for the general public. We hope to see you there!

Thursday, April 19, 2007

B4MD screening in Philly, May 7


Hey Philly readers.

On Monday, May 7, the Philadelphia Chapter of the Recording Academy is hosting a screening of the documentary Before the Music Dies. The movie tells the story of American music at a precarious moment when just a handful of companies dominate the radio waves and the retail racks. Filmmakers Andrew Shapter and Joel Rasmussen traveled the country, hoping to understand why mainstream music seems so packaged and repetitive, and whether corporations really had the power to silence musical innovation. Widely-praised and award-winning, the movie includes interview lots of musicians, industry folks and fans.

After the screening, FMC's Kristin Thomson will participate in a panel discussion on the effects of radio consolidation, changes to the music industry and artist development with director Joel Rasmussen and Marcy Rauer Wagman, Director of Drexel University's Music Industry program.

Before the Music Dies
Monday, May 7
International House, 3701 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA
Doors at 6:00 PM
Admission is $10 for Grammy members and $15 for the general public.

Hope to see you there!

Monday, April 2, 2007

Tanglin' with Clear Channel

FMC released a study last year called "False Premises, False Promises" that quantified the destructive impact consolidation had on the radio industry. The report has been quoted at length in the media, but here are a few salient points:

The "localness" of radio ownership – ownership by individuals living in the community -- has declined between 1975 and 2005 by almost one-third

Just fifteen formats make up three-quarters of all commercial programming. Moreover, radio formats with different names can overlap up to 80% in terms of the songs played on them.

Niche musical formats like Classical, Jazz, Americana, Bluegrass, New Rock, and Folk, where they exist, are provided almost exclusively by smaller station groups.

Why are we rehashing old reports?

For people interested in radio consolidation, there's a poignant companion piece to the study that puts a human face on radio consolidation. USC Professor Jerry Del Colliano documents his personal run in with Clear Channel via a lawsuit. Del Colliano said he was sued as publisher of Inside Radio magazine after he came out strongly against radio consolidation. In the end, he was forced to sell Inside Radio. To whom? Take a guess. . . Clear Channel. Del Colliano asks the reader to make his or her own conclusions about the reasons Clear Channel sued him, but it's an interesting cautionary tale.