Re: this week in review....

["Joseph Pappalardo" <joepappalardo2001@yahoo.com>]

This sounds a little like the "grassy knoll" theory of radio....  ;-)

Is everything a conspiracy?

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar....


Joe


----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Vita" <brian_vita@cssinc.com>
To: <Chuckigo@worldnet.att.net>; "Garrett Wollman"
<wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
Cc: "Boston Radio Interest" <boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2001 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: this week in review....


> Doesn't the group ownership cap set up another possible scenario?  Try
this
> one on for size.  I'm using a local owner for the sake of demonstration
> only, this is not an actual situation:
>
> 1.  There are a finite number of frequencies available in a given market
> 2.  There is an ownership cap based on % of advertising revenue.
> 3.  A large player, Greater Media has a very successful station (WMJX) and
> it wants to keep it successful so it buys up as many of the other stations
> in the market and deliberately puts less successful programming on them
(Hot
> Talk, AOR, Oldies [already in the market]).  By limiting the competition
the
> value of the primary station is protected and can charge the big $$$ for
ad
> revenue while being satisfied with the secondary ones paying their rent on
> time.  As long as the group doesn't exceed the cap, this works.  The
larger
> station can charge confiscatory rates and the smaller ones can be thrown
in
> as "packages".
>
> Brian T. Vita, President
> Cinema Service & Supply, Inc.
> 75 Walnut St.
> Peabody, MA  01960-5626
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chuck Igo" <Chuckigo@worldnet.att.net>
> To: "Garrett Wollman" <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
> Cc: "Boston Radio Interest" <boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org>
> Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2001 8:32 AM
> Subject: RE: this week in review....
>
>
> >
> > Garrett wrote:
> > >>I've lived in markets where 1 of the top 7 stations had a 33+ share.
> > (Assuming there even were seven stations to show up in the book....)<<
> >
> > And when the number of stations are that small, it's possible for that
to
> > happen.  also, iirc, didn't WTIC in the 80's have some 20+ share books?
> > in Portland, there are over 20 rated signals for a metro population
under
> a
> > half-million people.  it's hard enough for a station to stake out a
claim,
> > which is why the concerns were initially raised about group ownership.
> > wasn't the ceiling set at 30 percent of available audience ratings?
> meaning
> > that, when the consolidation of stations began, corporations were only
> > allowed to accumulate stations based on the most recent, prevailing
> ratings
> > shares; if the stations they desired to own had a combined rating share
of
> > less than 30 percent, then the deals were okay.  if a group had, say,
> three
> > stations already with an (example) existing twenty percent of audience
> > shares, then went to acquire two more signals with additional
percentages
> > that would put them over the limit, that deal would be nixed.
> > i feel bad for smaller operators who still have the guts to give it a
go,
> > people such as Bob B. and JJ Jeffrey, who are going to get pushed
further
> > and further down the food chain.
> >
> > - -Chuck Igo
> >
>


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com