Clear Channel Billboard Bandits

[Vertigo58]

Quite the opposite! I LOVE billboards and snappy/clever slogan's. Thats what I do for a living!

It's the raunchy, tasteless, risque junk that I am happy to see tone down, thats all. In fact as I indicated on several topics, I wish we were more like what you see in NYC Times Square/Tokyo and the Las Vegas strip! Neon, high-tech imagery, etc. I can't get enough of it. One of my all time favs billboard advertising is the ones that are like gigantic venetian blinds that flip one at a time left to right as it reads out a slogan, then slowly flips in reverse. Cool stuff. I was big time impressed by sci-fi, cult film Bladerunner. The huge "live" model advertising candies, etc. Just too cool.

and I couldnt imagine the Sunset Strip & LA without billboards

[Gary]

As a former resident of Socal, I always loved LA's bill boards. In Houston however they seem to litter the freeways hahazardly. In LA the bill boards are well thought out and imo actually add character to the landscape.

I for one am ecstatic about this news...

[TheNiche]

I like billboards, but I hate Clear Channel. I've never understood why some people were so opposed to billboards.

I don't know why people are so opposed to Clear Channel, but I like billboards too. They add a bit of grit and vitality to the landscape. Take them away, and it just makes the city a little bit more sterile...not unlike a master planned community in the suburbs.

One thing I would like to see are dynamic billboards. But if I recall correctly, our sign code doesn't allow it.

[memebag]

I don't know why people are so opposed to Clear Channel, but I like billboards too.

I don't like Clear Channel because they buy political influence to loosen media ownership regulations so they can dominate markets, so they can make more money to buy more influence, so they can make more money.

[TheNiche]

I don't like Clear Channel because they buy political influence to loosen media ownership regulations so they can dominate markets, so they can make more money to buy more influence, so they can make more money.

That a media conglomeration has a sufficiently good business model that its market share expands, I don't see a problem. When that successful enterprise runs up against a barrier to growth put in place by politicians, I don't blame them for trying to breach it. I hope that they succeed.

[Vertigo58]

As a former resident of Socal, I always loved LA's bill boards. In Houston however they seem to litter the freeways hahazardly. In LA the bill boards are well thought out and imo actually add character to the landscape.

I for one am ecstatic about this news...

Me too, West LA worked right on Wilshire Blvd, advertising city, and loved it. They had some of the best "moving" or electric billboards I have ever seen. One was like an origami-type continously In-folding billboard, way cool.

I personally like these as they seem strong and are easily seen from all directions.

It's the sloppy advertising that only fuels the publics hatred of billboards. So sadly billboards take the bad wrap. (This is nothing compared to what we see in Houston)

[memebag]

That a media conglomeration has a sufficiently good business model that its market share expands, I don't see a problem. When that successful enterprise runs up against a barrier to growth put in place by politicians, I don't blame them for trying to breach it. I hope that they succeed.

So you don't think the "public" airwaves should be owned by the public, but should be for sale to the highest bidder? Do you have the same opinion about public space in general?

[Gary]

.

One thing I would like to see are dynamic billboards. But if I recall correctly, our sign code doesn't allow it.

Absolutely! I was in Baton Rouge a couple of weeks ago and they had some very dynamic bill boards, and i found myself wishing we had those here.

Why would our sign code prevent this seeing that their not to picky with what's currently up?

[TheNiche]

So you don't think the "public" airwaves should be owned by the public, but should be for sale to the highest bidder? Do you have the same opinion about public space in general?

All members of the public ought to have equal access to ownership of the airwaves. Station frequencies are finite in number, so they must be efficiently rationed to those who can create the greatest value with them (i.e. the highest bidder).

Ditto on parks, roads, BLM lands, port terminals, and civic buildings. ...just about everything but military bases.

Why would our sign code prevent this seeing that their not to picky with what's currently up?

I don't know why. That's a question for your elected representatives.

[TJones]

So you don't think the "public" airwaves should be owned by the public, but should be for sale to the highest bidder? Do you have the same opinion about public space in general?

So, we make the "public" responsible for what goes out over these "public" airwaves, but then the free speechers claim they are being censored. What then ? Make your own radio station if you don't like what is being played by the conglomerate.

[memebag]

So, we make the "public" responsible for what goes out over these "public" airwaves, but then the free speechers claim they are being censored. What then ? Make your own radio station if you don't like what is being played by the conglomerate.

That's a fine option, unless all of the licenses are controlled by a handful of media companies (like Clear Channel) who pay politicians to keep everyone else off the public airwaves. See the problem?

All members of the public ought to have equal access to ownership of the airwaves. Station frequencies are finite in number, so they must be efficiently rationed to those who can create the greatest value with them (i.e. the highest bidder).

What is the value of free speech?

[TheNiche]

That's a fine option, unless all of the licenses are controlled by a handful of media companies (like Clear Channel) who pay politicians to keep everyone else off the public airwaves. See the problem?

Are they in fact paying politicians to keep anybody off the airwaves? Or are they just expanding a successful business model?

What is the value of free speech?

Immense. But that you or I are free to speak our mind does not mean that everyone else ought to hear what we have to say. Clear Channel seeks programming that people actually want to hear, and puts that on the air.

[crunchtastic]

All members of the public ought to have equal access to ownership of the airwaves. Station frequencies are finite in number, so they must be efficiently rationed to those who can create the greatest value with them (i.e. the highest bidder).

Ditto on parks, roads, BLM lands, port terminals, and civic buildings. ...just about everything but military bases.

That's textbook Chicago School. Except why stop with military bases? If privatization is so great, why not take the logical next step to a full mercenary armed forces. Hell then we don't have to worry about the VA. Don Rumsfeld tried to go there, and look what happened to him. I think it's because Freidman's theories could never solve for an eventual public outcry over over every public asset, every public commodity (lots built with public tax dollars) being sold to the highest bidder. I'm with Meme.

Cheers,

Your friendly armchair Keynesian

[webdude]

Are they in fact paying politicians to keep anybody off the airwaves? Or are they just expanding a successful business model?

Immense. But that you or I are free to speak our mind does not mean that everyone else ought to hear what we have to say. Clear Channel seeks programming that people actually want to hear, and puts that on the air.

Not all. Its always a mix. Sometimes they put out programming that majority wants to hear, sometimes its for the minority but push to the majority. That is incidentally how some monopolies work.

Whole thing reminds me of windows with internet explorer, do ppl actually want it or is it because its there vs firefox.

[TheNiche]

That's textbook Chicago School. Except why stop with military bases? If privatization is so great, why not take the logical next step to a full mercenary armed forces. Hell then we don't have to worry about the VA. Don Rumsfeld tried to go there, and look what happened to him. I think it's because Freidman's theories could never solve for an eventual public outcry over over every public asset, every public commodity (lots built with public tax dollars) being sold to the highest bidder. I'm with Meme. Cheers,Your friendly armchair Keynesian

Privatized service and service support operations are another matter, but mercenary combatants are where I draw the line. Way too many downsides, not much benefit. And our VA obligations wouldn't even go away until all our current veterans died off; even when they did, we'd have to pay either directly or indirectly for mercenaries' benefits, or else the compensation package wouldn't be sufficient to attract enough mercenaries. It was debating the military privatization issue that prompted my conclusion that I wouldn't make a very good Libertarian.

Not all. Its always a mix. Sometimes they put out programming that majority wants to hear, sometimes its for the minority but push to the majority. That is incidentally how some monopolies work.

Forgive me for perhaps being thick-headed, but could you provide an example?

[webdude]

Forgive me for perhaps being thick-headed, but could you provide an example?

Forgive me too if I didn't see the proof that all the programming are what ppl actually wanted.

[TheNiche]

Forgive me too if I didn't see the proof that these are the programming that ppl actually wanted.

Proof is elusive, but: Evidence --> $

[memebag]

Are they in fact paying politicians to keep anybody off the airwaves? Or are they just expanding a successful business model?

False dichotomy. Paying politicians to allow them to control more frequencies is a great business model.

Immense. But that you or I are free to speak our mind does not mean that everyone else ought to hear what we have to say. Clear Channel seeks programming that people actually want to hear, and puts that on the air.

Which is great for when the resources aren't so limited, but dangerous when they are. Would you feel the same if Clear Channel, Fox and other multi-national media conglomerates used their licenses to broadcast socialist propaganda?

[webdude]

Proof is elusive, but: Evidence --> $

Proof is indeed elusive, because $ --> evidence works for the opposing view too. Enterprises are known to spend money on controlling distribution/placement in lieu of product development for greater gains down the road.

[memebag]

I think it's because Freidman's theories could never solve for an eventual public outcry over over every public asset, every public commodity (lots built with public tax dollars) being sold to the highest bidder.

I think a bigger problem the Chicago School could never solve was that of negative externalities. The private cost of lobbying doesn't consider the social cost of monopolized media.

[TheNiche]

False dichotomy. Paying politicians to allow them to control more frequencies is a great business model.

I don't think you quite understood what I meant.If Clear Channel continues to expand their presence in a media market, say by purchasing an increasing number of radio stations out of a finite and essentially unchanging number of them, then Clear Channel going to have to expand the aggregate amount of content offer media consumers in that market while the seller of the station reduces the amount of content that they offer, such that the net change of air time utilized for content is effectively zero.

Some voices currently on the air might be deemed uneconomical, and in fact whole stations might undergo a format change, but it isn't as though Clear Channel is just going to air Rush Limbaugh (a mere vendor to Clear Channel) on multiple stations serving the same market at the same time--that'd be stupid. Instead, they're going to provide differentiated content that appeals optimally to various segments of the media market such that Clear Channel captures the largest market share as is possible.

You'd stated that Clear Channel is paying politicians "to keep everyone else off the public airwaves." But, considering the practicalities stated above, who is being deposed from the airwaves by some government decree paid for by Clear Channel?

Which is great for when the resources aren't so limited, but dangerous when they are. Would you feel the same if Clear Channel, Fox and other multi-national media conglomerates used their licenses to broadcast socialist propaganda?

Fox News is a station of Newscorp, just as is Fox (broadcast) and FX. Newscorp is very comparable to Clear Channel because they have different channels that appeal to different segments of a market. Newscorp itself is ideologically neutral; they just want to make money. Every one of those channels has content that troubles me, whether they're overtly broadcasting socialist propaganda or just the everyday sort. But breaking them up is only a futile reactionary response to the symptoms of a greater problem: the educational system.

If you have a problem with the media that people gravitate to, changing the people should probably be your aim. The media that they consume is only an outgrowth of that.

Proof is indeed elusive, because $ --> evidence works for the opposing view too. Enterprises are known to spend money on controlling distribution/placement in lieu of product development for greater gains down the road.

Please explain relevence.

I think a bigger problem the Chicago School could never solve was that of negative externalities. The private cost of lobbying doesn't consider the social cost of monopolized media.

I like anti-trust regulation, but I'd appreciate it if you'd provide evidence to the effect that Clear Channel is a monopoly.

[TJones]

That's a fine option, unless all of the licenses are controlled by a handful of media companies (like Clear Channel) who pay politicians to keep everyone else off the public airwaves. See the problem?

What is the value of free speech?

Politicians are already being paid to try and push out the likes of Rush and Hannity, and others like them. It was tried and failed, remember the "Fairness Doctrine"? Business models using politicians as your posterboys don't always work, now do they ? Air America tried to keep afloat but found no market for their hate-filled tirades, and claimed that there was an unfair market advantage in talk radio, but they couldn't prove what that advantage was. Then, when they started stealing from Peter to pay Paul, it snowballed on them.

There are plenty of channels available for people to start up there own radio stations, it all depends on whether there is a market for you or not, and if you can follow the FCC guidelines.

Meme, do you think the FCC should be disbanned as well, so that the value of "free speech" can ring free. What politicians are being paid to keep "everyone else" off the air, who is "everyone else" ?

[memebag]

I don't think you quite understood what I meant.If Clear Channel continues to expand their presence in a media market, say by purchasing an increasing number of radio stations out of a finite and essentially unchanging number of them, then Clear Channel going to have to expand the aggregate amount of content offer media consumers in that market while the seller of the station reduces the amount of content that they offer, such that the net change of air time utilized for content is effectively zero.

Some voices currently on the air might be deemed uneconomical, and in fact whole stations might undergo a format change, but it isn't as though Clear Channel is just going to air Rush Limbaugh (a mere vendor to Clear Channel) on multiple stations serving the same market at the same time--that'd be stupid. Instead, they're going to provide differentiated content that appeals optimally to various segments of the media market such that Clear Channel captures the largest market share as is possible.

I understood what you said: "Are they in fact paying politicians to keep anybody off the airwaves? Or are they just expanding a successful business model?"

That's a false dichotomy. They can pay to expand the number of stations a single corporation can own AND make a lot of money doing it. They don't have to offer alternatives. They can effectively broadcast the same material on all of their outlets. By decreasing the options for the consumer, they can increase their ad revenue.

You'd stated that Clear Channel is paying politicians "to keep everyone else off the public airwaves." But, considering the practicalities stated above, who is being deposed from the airwaves by some government decree paid for by Clear Channel?

Other broadcasters. That should be obvious.

Fox News is a station of Newscorp, just as is Fox (broadcast) and FX. Newscorp is very comparable to Clear Channel because they have different channels that appeal to different segments of a market. Newscorp itself is ideologically neutral; they just want to make money. Every one of those channels has content that troubles me, whether they're overtly broadcasting socialist propaganda or just the everyday sort. But breaking them up is only a futile reactionary response to the symptoms of a greater problem: the educational system.

If you have a problem with the media that people gravitate to, changing the people should probably be your aim. The media that they consume is only an outgrowth of that.

So, your answer to my question is ... ?

I like anti-trust regulation, but I'd appreciate it if you'd provide evidence to the effect that Clear Channel is a monopoly.

I didn't say Clear Channel was a monopoly. That post was about the Chicago School of economics.

Clear Channel isn't a monopoly, but they own 1200 radio stations in the US, and have owned as many as 7 stations in a single market at the same time. They are an "oligopolist".

[memebag]

Politicians are already being paid to try and push out the likes of Rush and Hannity, and others like them. It was tried and failed, remember the "Fairness Doctrine"? Business models using politicians as your posterboys don't always work, now do they ? Air America tried to keep afloat but found no market for their hate-filled tirades, and claimed that there was an unfair market advantage in talk radio, but they couldn't prove what that advantage was. Then, when they started stealing from Peter to pay Paul, it snowballed on them.

Huh?

There are plenty of channels available for people to start up there own radio stations, it all depends on whether there is a market for you or not, and if you can follow the FCC guidelines.

There are plenty of channels?? Where? Did you find some new ones?

Meme, do you think the FCC should be disbanned as well, so that the value of "free speech" can ring free.

No?

What politicians are being paid to keep "everyone else" off the air, who is "everyone else" ?

I don't have a list of their names in my hand. It started with Reagan and went full tilt with the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

"Everyone else" are the media corporations that no longer exist. In 1983, there were 50 major media corporations in the US market. In 1996 that number was down to 10, and now it's down to 6.

Do you think most of what we read, most of what we see and most of what we hear should come from just 6 corporations?

[WesternGulf]

Me too, West LA worked right on Wilshire Blvd, advertising city, and loved it. They had some of the best "moving" or electric billboards I have ever seen. One was like an origami-type continously In-folding billboard, way cool.

I think LA may have some type of zoning on their billboards. There is a difference between a low lying i-pod, movie or fashion billboard that is part of the streetscape than a McDonalds 3 miles ahead or discount furniture bilboard rising 50 feet in the air.

Billboard on Washington and Stockton in SF.

SOMA in San Francisco

[crunchtastic]

I don't have a list of their names in my hand. It started with Reagan and went full tilt with the Telecommunications Act of 1996."Everyone else" are the media corporations that no longer exist. In 1983, there were 50 major media corporations in the US market. In 1996 that number was down to 10, and now it's down to 6.

Do you think most of what we read, most of what we see and most of what we hear should come from just 6 corporations?

Wait, I thought it was the liberal media's fault! You mean 6 corporate content masters is a good thing??

Thank goodness for that. I'd hate for the fat cats to get in the way of my media consumption.

[TheNiche]

I understood what you said: "Are they in fact paying politicians to keep anybody off the airwaves? Or are they just expanding a successful business model?"

That's a false dichotomy. They can pay to expand the number of stations a single corporation can own AND make a lot of money doing it. They don't have to offer alternatives. They can effectively broadcast the same material on all of their outlets. By decreasing the options for the consumer, they can increase their ad revenue.

Other broadcasters. That should be obvious.

So, your answer to my question is ... ?

I didn't say Clear Channel was a monopoly. That post was about the Chicago School of economics.

Clear Channel isn't a monopoly, but they own 1200 radio stations in the US, and have owned as many as 7 stations in a single market at the same time. They are an "oligopolist".

I'm not sure whether you didn't understood what I'd said or whether you don't understand what you're saying.

First of all, enough with this false dichotomy business. An argument cannot be unsound or fallacious if an argument wasn't made. I asked two questions, discounted neither as a possibility, and expected an answer. The universe of possible responses is {(yes,yes),(yes,no),(no,yes),(no,no)}, and more importantly, I'd hope that you would provide explanation and evidence supporting your response.

Secondly, what I've been saying is that Clear Channel has not actually removed the number of voices on the airwaves. They may change the voices or even station formats, but the number of options available to the listening public remains the same. They could broadcast Rush Limbaugh on all of their channels at the same time, but that would be stupid. They are in it for the money and they aren't stupid. It doesn't matter to me that they could do something stupid...they won't.

And third, according to the FCC, there are nearly 11,000 commercial radio stations in the U.S. If Clear Channel owns 1,200, that's 11%. The next largest owner is Cumulus Broadcasting, which has about 300 stations (3%). It is true that there has been ownership consolidation, but it doesn't concern me. If Clear Channel ever owns more than half of the stations, that'll be reason enough for my eyebrows to become slightly elevated. But for the time being, the only thing elevated are my shoulders.

[TheNiche]

There are plenty of channels?? Where? Did you find some new ones?

Per the FCC, the number of commercial radio stations has increased by 6.8% over the previous 10 years. I did not, myself, expect that when I found the stat. ...learn something new every day.

Oh, and don't forget about satellite radio. There are some that'd argue that its a different kind of media format altogether, but I'd argue that it's a decent substitute for tradional AM/FM radio. Lots of new channels, there.

[crunchtastic]

My problem with the conglomeration effect is this: it's all about money, the ad revenue. So in another 10 years where are we? I'm making these numbers up. 80% spanish language for the people who can't afford private. A little talk radio for the old crusty diehards. The money, the middle and upper middle income, has flown the coop to subscription radio. That's an easy enough equation. But it pisses me off. I can afford XM, just like I can afford Dish, so on ad nauseam. But I don't want to. Good content on public airspace should not be dependent upon your ability to pay. But the content has collapsed with media conglomeration.

Conglomeration has removed local content and editing from the equation. All you get is 2 minutes per hour of weather and traffic, or whatver the ratio. That's the problem with ClearChannel. But yet isn't 'public' supposed to include 'local' ? Instead we're on a loop. I really, truly, believe the airwaves should be last ****damn symbol of un-privatized freedom in this country, and don't please don't start with the 'FCC regulation/government bad' arguments. Whew. Having said all that, so far I don't think a lot of homeland security money is going the FCC way, so I predict the next 10 years will see a resurgence in pirate radio. Especially given our proximity to the border. One can only hope.

[memebag]

Wait, I thought it was the liberal media's fault! You mean 6 corporate content masters is a good thing??

Huh?

I'm not sure whether you didn't understood what I'd said or whether you don't understand what you're saying.

First of all, enough with this false dichotomy business. An argument cannot be unsound or fallacious if an argument wasn't made. I asked two questions, discounted neither as a possibility, and expected an answer. The universe of possible responses is {(yes,yes),(yes,no),(no,yes),(no,no)}, and more importantly, I'd hope that you would provide explanation and evidence supporting your response.

You gave me a choice. Either Clear Channel is "paying politicians to keep anybody off the airwaves" or Clear Channel is "just expanding a successful business model". You didn't ask two questions, even though you used two question marks. You put an "or" between them, remember?

Clear Channel lobbied heavily for relaxation of the media ownership regulations so they could buy more radio stations within markets. That's well documented.

Clear Channel made a lot of money by doing that. That's also well documented.

Secondly, what I've been saying is that Clear Channel has not actually removed the number of voices on the airwaves. They may change the voices or even station formats, but the number of options available to the listening public remains the same. They could broadcast Rush Limbaugh on all of their channels at the same time, but that would be stupid. They are in it for the money and they aren't stupid. It doesn't matter to me that they could do something stupid...they won't.

They have reduced the variety of content by controlling more stations within single markets. They make company wide policies that affect all of their stations. Being in it for the money doesn't exclude reducing consumer choice. On the contrary, the two often go hand in hand.

And third, according to the FCC, there are nearly 11,000 commercial radio stations in the U.S. If Clear Channel owns 1,200, that's 11%. The next largest owner is Cumulus Broadcasting, which has about 300 stations (3%). It is true that there has been ownership consolidation, but it doesn't concern me. If Clear Channel ever owns more than half of the stations, that'll be reason enough for my eyebrows to become slightly elevated. But for the time being, the only thing elevated are my shoulders.

You said you didn't know why people were opposed to Clear Channel. Some of us don't think any single entity should be allowed to own that many stations, especially in a single market.