Late Night - Early AM on WBZ-AM is now Mr. Computer

[Ron]

>> but up until about 1980 the focus in such companies used to be the long
term.

And it was in radio as long as the value of radio properties was going up.  

But when the value of radio stations started to drop, and advertising
revenue dropped, people become more focused on the "short term" (and
survival).

>> That is true, but the pressure on Congress and the FCC to change those
laws and regulations was applied by Wall Street.

And it was up to our elected leader to read the bill, a bill that most of
them thought was all about cell-phones.

(This appeared to be one of those:  " "We have to pass the bill so that you
can find out what is in it" moments.)





-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Landry <011010001@interpring.com> 
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2020 2:21 PM
To: Ron <obrienron2@gmail.com>
Cc: 'Kevin Vahey' <kvahey@gmail.com>; 'bri' <BRI@bostonradio.org>
Subject: RE: Late Night - Early AM on WBZ-AM is now Mr. Computer



On Thu, 16 Jan 2020, Ron wrote:

> Wasn't Gannett, Westinghouse, Hearst, CBS, NBC, ABC, Metromedia and 
> the rest "publicly held companies driven, as usual, by short-term
financial goals"?

They were publicly held companies, sure enough, but up until about 1980 the
focus in such companies used to be the long term. Remember when AT&T had
Bell Labs, and other companies like IBM had similar divisions, experimenting
with new technologies and the like?

> I'm sure stock price, dividends and such drove all those companies as 
> well, yet somehow they were able to service their communities, right?

The narrow focus on "maximizing shareholder value" was originally proposed,
if I remember right, at Harvard Business School in the mid seventies. It
didn't catch on generally until about a decade later, and the deregulation
of the radio industry during the 80s and 90s allowed it free reign in our
industry.

> Smaller, privately owned stations aren't doing much better.

We are all blown by the same economic winds.

> I think this has to do with the realities of the financial world, 
> where once valuable properties (assets) are now worth a pittance of 
> what they were purchased for.  Blaming "publicly held companies" 
> driven by their fiduciary responsibilities is an easy excuse.

Publicly held companies have obligations that privately held companies don't
have; everything they do has to be reationalized in terms of shareholder
value. A publicly held company can't, for instance, build a big rocket and
send its CEO's car to Mars, as Elon Musk's privately-held SpaceX can. Nor
can it employ people for their own sake, the sake of the communites they
live in, or anyone else's sake but shareholders.

> I think when the FCC allowed and Congress removed the ownership caps 
> (through the "Omnibus Telecommunications Act") set the stage.  (Always 
> watch out for anything with the adjective "Omnibus" attached.)

That is true, but the pressure on Congress and the FCC to change those laws
and regulations was applied by Wall Street.


Rob