Clear Channel Billboard Bandits

[crunchtastic]

Huh?

being sarcastic and typing fast w/o the helpful use of smileys.

[TheNiche]

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. I really, truly, believe the airwaves should be last goddamn 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.

The problem with crystal balls is that they're translucent. You might be able to make out the color and general shape of the object on the other side, but the details are obscured. I wouldn't be at all surprised if, within another 10 to 20 years, there are enough XM satellites and channels that every car (or ultralight commuter plane or iPod, or whatever) comes only with an XM receiver and the user only has to choose whether they want programming with or without commercial interruption on a free or subscriber basis, respectively. Or perhaps XM is just an intermediate media that'll be replaced with something altogether different. Whatever happens, it seems as though the number of channels in one format or another is going to expand. And to the extent that XM drains traditional radio of its more affluent listenership, limiting ad revenue potential, it is entirely possible that the cost of purchasing FM or AM channels will decline to the point at which we see a lot of really amateurish low-budget locally-owned and locally-produced programming targeting niche audiences.

I really don't know, but you'll have to count me as an optimist. I'm a big believer in human ingenuity where technology is concerned.

[crunchtastic]

The problem with crystal balls is that they're translucent. You might be able to make out the color and general shape of the object on the other side, but the details are obscured. I wouldn't be at all surprised if, within another 10 to 20 years, there are enough XM satellites and channels that every car (or ultralight commuter plane or iPod, or whatever) comes only with an XM receiver and the user only has to choose whether they want programming with or without commercial interruption on a free or subscriber basis, respectively. Or perhaps XM is just an intermediate media that'll be replaced with something altogether different. Whatever happens, it seems as though the number of channels in one format or another is going to expand. And to the extent that XM drains traditional radio of its more affluent listenership, limiting ad revenue potential, it is entirely possible that the cost of purchasing FM or AM channels will decline to the point at which we see a lot of really amateurish low-budget locally-owned and locally-produced programming targeting niche audiences.

I really don't know, but you'll have to count me as an optimist. I'm a big believer in human ingenuity where technology is concerned.

So basically, what you're saying, is that The Future could be jetpacks and Wayne's World?

Gotta love that optimism.

[memebag]

I wouldn't be at all surprised if, within another 10 to 20 years, there are enough XM satellites and channels that every car (or ultralight commuter plane or iPod, or whatever) comes only with an XM receiver and the user only has to choose whether they want programming with or without commercial interruption on a free or subscriber basis, respectively.

That would surprise me. If the NAB doesn't stop it, Sirius is going to absorb XM, so there won't be any XM satellites or receivers. They will all be branded Sirius. If the NAB does stop them, XM will go out of business.

Whatever happens, it seems as though the number of channels in one format or another is going to expand.

That's correct. FM and AM will eventually be replaced by digital formats with the capacity for massive amounts of content. An oligopoly over distribution of that content should be easy to prevent, unless we continue to allow money to prevent regulation.

Remember, it's supposed to be one man one vote, not one dollar one vote.

[TheNiche]

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?

Learn the meaning of the unmodified word "or". This was not an "either-or" question.

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.

You have yet to answer my first question, but it seems that you'd agree that they're seeking to carry on with a successful business model.

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.

Help me understand what you mean by "reduced the variety of content". If their channels aren't off the air or airing the same material over and over or simultaneously, then the variety of content within any one market is unaffected. And since there have been an expansion in the number of radio stations, it'd seem like content has actually expanded in quantity. Are you talking about locally-produced content, the total number of hours of content produced nationwide, or what? And if so, or if it is something else, why do you see that as a matter of national importance? (Please note: I'm asking two seperate questions, seeking responses to each, seperately. These are not arguments, so don't assess them as such. Thank you.)

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.

In which market did they own seven stations? For what duration of time? How many stations were active in that market in total? If we're talking about LA or something like that, prepare for me to be unimpressed.

[TheNiche]

So basically, what you're saying, is that The Future could be jetpacks and Wayne's World?

Gotta love that optimism.

The future can be a lot of things. It probably won't be defined by 45-year-old technology or by a 15-year-old movie.

[TheNiche]

That would surprise me. If the NAB doesn't stop it, Sirius is going to absorb XM, so there won't be any XM satellites or receivers. They will all be branded Sirius. If the NAB does stop them, XM will go out of business.

That's correct. FM and AM will eventually be replaced by digital formats with the capacity for massive amounts of content. An oligopoly over distribution of that content should be easy to prevent, unless we continue to allow money to prevent regulation.

Bear in mind the number of years I threw out there. Specifics like these don't often matter so much in the grand scheme.

Remember, it's supposed to be one man one vote, not one dollar one vote.

I think reality is probably somewhere in the middle, but who's talking about voters?

[Vertigo58]

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.

I know in cities like San Jose and the greater Silicon Valley and Pleasanton only allow buildings to be a certain height and all billboards must be at a very low level, nothing high up in the air, period.

Similar controversies exist/brewing :

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../carollloyd.DTL

http://www.mediainstitute.org/ONLINE/FAM20...omspeech_I.html

[musicman]

I know in cities like San Jose and the greater Silicon Valley and Pleasanton only allow buildings to be a certain height and all billboards must be at a very low level, nothing high up in the air, period.

well it seems like the larger ones along the freeways are staying......so it will be interesting to see how much difference it will make. maybe the hoods will look better though.

[RedScare]

well it seems like the larger ones along the freeways are staying......so it will be interesting to see how much difference it will make. maybe the hoods will look better though.

Yes, this was very much a compromise...let them have the more profitable, more visible boards for a reduction of the blight in the neighborhoods. I think I can live with that. As long as you stay off the freeways, you won't have to see as many boards. Just one more reason to avoid the freeway.

[editor]

Since someone mentioned Chicago earlier in this thread as a "billboard-free" city, I'd like to chime in that it's not true. However, there are tough rules about where billboards can be placed -- most notably billboards of a certain size cannot be close (I don't know the exact distance) to a highway.

There are certain billboards that are grandfathered in, but I believe repairs on them are limited. There's one old burned-out half-fallen-down crack stack next to what's left of Cabrini Green that is apparently owned by a billboard company. The junkies keep setting it on fire and the billboard keeps getting re-painted fresh and new. The building's ready to collapse, but the advertising space along I-90/94 is so valuable that the billboard company (CBS I think) keeps bracing the building.

As for the rest of this discussion, if you want to talk about Clear Channel's influence on radio, feel free to start another thread. Let's keep this one on topic.

[musicman]

Yes, this was very much a compromise...let them have the more profitable, more visible boards for a reduction of the blight in the neighborhoods. I think I can live with that. As long as you stay off the freeways, you won't have to see as many boards. Just one more reason to avoid the freeway.

i guess on the freeways i have more visual "free time" because those are the ones i remember the most. it will be interesting to see whether (and how much) the industry invests in upgrading the non-hurricane compliant ones as well otherwise they have to be torn down. i know someone along i-10 that owns one that will most likely come down.

[musicman]

Council delays move on billboard reduction plans

City Council on Wednesday delayed consideration of two proposals aimed at reducing the number of billboards around Houston.

full article

Hopefully this is only a short delay.

[H-Town Man]

A few questions:

Why, after twenty years of this lawsuit being in court, are we negotiating? Did the lawsuit succeed, or not? Is the 1981 law viable, or not?

How come, if the billboard ban was passed in 1981, it takes until 2013 for these signs to come down?

If this law allows the companies to move some signs in exchange for removing others, does that mean that the signs they are moving are still going to come down in 2013? Or will it be longer now?

It looks like this is mainly aimed at very small billboards (100 sq. ft.). What about the giant ones? When will they come down?

How come articles in the Houston Chronicle never seem to explain anything well? Is it because they are afraid of the sentences getting too complicated, and thus going above their usual second grade reading level?

Anyone who has answers to any of these, please let me know.

[dbigtex56]

Council delays move on billboard reduction plans

City Council on Wednesday delayed consideration of two proposals aimed at reducing the number of billboards around Houston.

full article

Hopefully this is only a short delay.

Among the comments in the Chronicle's website, urban1 writes:

"...might have been helpful to those of us reading this article if you had mentioned "why" the City Council decided to delay consideration."

Exactly.

How are we supposed to get an accurate picture of those who represent us when the Chronicle repeatedly drops the ball on political reporting? It would be nice to know who makes what motion, and who votes for what, without spending eye-glazing hours watching the Municipal Channel.

[The Great Hizzy!]

The Chronicle often leaves a lot to be desired. However, I'm now starting to think that it's a national problem.

Hardly anyone likes their hometown newspaper.

Ugh!