Posts Tagged ‘NAB’

Betting on the future

Friday, October 9th, 2009

This is a followup to the “Why Talk is Moving to FM” post about a week ago.

I’m actually going to encourage you right wing nuts (and you know who you are!) to read the Huffington Post, specifically HERE.  Tamara Conniff is a former editor of Billboard Magazine, which means she really knows the music business and is not a light weight.

This article lays out the details behind the Performance Rights Act currently making its way through the U.S. Senate.  She supports the act, but lays out a factual description of what it is and what it could do.

While she supports the idea of the radio stations paying performers to play their music, she also raises the red flag of FM radio turning into a wasteland of right wing talk radio, sports talk and Spanish language programming.

(I tend to think some radio stations and companies would fail, but others would adapt and thrive even paying the “tax”)

Anyhow, put yourself in the shoes of a scared radio company owner.   You’re looking at the possibility that this thing still might pass.  If you wait for the 9th inning, and then decide to switch your music FM station to Talk, by that point the best syndicated shows and sports networks will already be pinned down in your market and you won’t have anything to put on the air (unless you produce it locally)

KKAT-AM in Utah and WNUW-FM in New Jersey (Philly area) have joined the list of recent switches from Music to Talk.

Look at the rate of this “format flips” as a barometer of if the NAB’s members think they are going to lose the fight with the music industry.    If they “flip” now, they can pin down the better shows to secure their future as a talk station.   If the performance rights act doesn’t pass, they can always flip back to computers playing random music in six months or a year (unless of course, they have a surge in ratings when they put on Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh :)).

Zune HD – the savior of radio?

Sunday, August 23rd, 2009

Microsoft’s answer to the iPod is out in a few weeks, and the NAB is crowing about its success in getting Microsoft to include an HD radio receiver in the device.   The Zune HD will sell for about $289 and be available in mid September.

The basic idea is the Zune is an MP3 player with video capability and a stripped down IE browser, with a slim profile and programmable touchscreen like the iPod Touch.   It is bundled with a subscription to a service to buy music each month, and the purchased songs are downloaded over wifi wireless connections.

The big “gotcha” about putting an HD radio in a digital music player would be that in theory it would be trivial for the player to take digital music from the over the air music stations, and store it into the MP3 player without buying the music.   Therefore, the HD radio in the Zune HD lets you *listen* to HD radio, but not to record it.

Why would the radio business be interested in protecting those greedy fat cat foreign-owend record companies from having listeners play music without paying for it?   Odd paradox, don’t you think?

Caroline Beasley misled Congress

Thursday, June 11th, 2009

Good morning Chairman Boucher, Ranking Member Stearns and Subcommittee members, my name is Caroline Beasley. I am the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Beasley Broadcast Group, a family-owned company, which owns and operates 44 radio stations in 11 markets.”.

This is going to come as a surprise to the holders of the 8.5 million shares of Beasely Class A stock they bought on NASDAQ (symbol BBGI) and still hold.  [Company Profile].  While it is true the Beasley family holds a controlling majority interest in their company and control its board of directors, it is wrong to characterize the company as a “family owned company”.    The company is a publicly traded corporation, of which the Beasley family has a majority ownership stake.  The Beasley company has been using borrowed money to try to “buy back” the Class A stock and regain complete ownership, but the Credit Facility was modified in March prohibiting the management from continuing to use the borrowed funds for that purpose.  They may intend to use some of the proceeds of the sale of two stations in Las Vegas to buy back the Class A stock in the future, but that’s not the current situation of who owns the company today.

The whole point of Sarbanes-Oxley was to hammer into people’s heads that once you do an IPO and sell stock to the public, your company is  no longer your private empire and piggy bank.  Your obligation is to protect the interests of all the stockholders, not the pre-IPO management.

Radio Owner Profile – NRG Media

Monday, May 25th, 2009

What do you get when you combine ag reports on the price of Pork Bellies, a South Dakota radio station owner who just would like to retire and get out of the business, the money man behind My Big Fat Greek Wedding, one of the 40 most powerful women in radio, a Private Equity Firm from Boston that specializes in companies with financial problems, and a wheeler dealer marathon runner who enjoys trading radio stations back and forth for fun and profit?

Introducing the story of NRG Media, now available here.

“Performance Tax” vs “Must Carry”

Sunday, May 24th, 2009

You’ve probably heard radio ads recently from the NAB encouraging you to “Call your Congressmen” to complain about radio stations having to pay a new “tax” that Congress is currently considering.   Everyone hates taxes, especially if it is big radio companies like Clear Channel who will have to pay it. [Who is NAB's media consultant?]

The “Tax” isn’t paid to the government - it would go to the record labels to compensate the record companies for making a profit (in theory) from playing their music.  In theory, some of that money will go to the artists or at least go to pay for promotion to build up sales of that artist.  The radio station owner position is basically “there wouldn’t be any music business if it wasn’t for the free publicity we gave you”.  The same people insisted that Sirius/XM and the Internet streamers *should* pay that same “tax”, and now “the chickens have come home to roost”, to borrow a phrase from Revenand Wright.

Many of the big members of the NAB also own TV stations.   Let’s turn their own argument on its head for a moment.   Back when cable TV was first rolling out, the NAB used its clout to force the “Must Carry” rule on Cable TV operators.  At the time, the Big 3 TV networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) owned television.  If you were lucky, there  might be a PBS station and one independent station.   TV had enormous clout.   Competition from Cable TV was a serious threat to their monopoly.    The idea that Cable TV would “steal” their programming, and maybe even make it easier for new TV stations to start had to be stopped in its tracks.

Each TV station (with a few minor exceptions)  in the local coverage area of the cable TV operator gets to choose – generally every 3 years between two options.   They can choose to be a “must carry” station, which means the Cable TV operator must include their station in basic cable service – and pay nothing to the TV station for using their fine programming (Must Carry is why your cable TV system is full of shopping channels).  “Must Carry” stations cannot be paid by the cable operator and must be included in the basic channel service without a surcharge.

Or the TV station can elect to NOT be a Must Carry station and negotiate a deal (”retransmission consent”) with the cable TV operator, asking to be paid a “TV Tax” to the TV station owner, the cost of which is passed on to the cable TV subscriber.   Having elected to not be a Must Carry TV station, the TV station can hold out for whatever terms it wants.  Typically the demand is that the Cable TV company carry one or more non-broadcast channels in addition to the over the air channels.

The Cable TV company may then choose to drop the station from their system and refuse to pay the “TV Tax” to the TV station owners for making money from their fine programming.   Should enough people complain that they miss the TV station, the Cable TV operator might be forced by consumer demand back to the negotiating table, or consumers might migrate to the Phone Company’s TV offering or sign up for satellite TV.  On the other hand, advertisers will want reduced rates if the TV station has been dropped from Cable TV.

So what’s the connection and where is this heading?  Here is my King Solomon “Cut the baby in half” solution to this issue.  Apply the Must Carry logic to Over the Air Radio.  Each radio station broadcasting music gets to choose their relationship with the record label(s).

  • Option #1 – The radio station pays no royalty.  The record labels in return get to determine the play lists and song rotation (within reasonable limits) within the genre of the station.   The Labels get to play those songs that will generate sales and promote new artists and music discovery (the NAB’s reason why music labels benefit from radio air play).  The radio station gets to play ads and keeps the revenue.
  • Option #2 -  The station picks the songs they want to play  subject to the same basic rules in place today (limiting how many songs in a row you can play by one artist/album, not announcing playlists in advance, etc…) – but since the station is no longer operating for the interests of the record labels, the station must pay a royalty for using the songs.   Playing Elton John songs from the 1970s probably doesn’t sell much music, so if a station wants to play old music or wants Jack to randomly play songs from a computer disk 24 hrs a day, they have to pay for using the music.

An optional (but important) part of this plan would be to end the Disney-fication of copyright law.  Each time Disney’s feature film library is about to enter the public domain, Disney applies political pressure on Congress to extend the time period of Copyright Protection.  Prior to 1976, the maximum period of copyright protection was 56 years.  In 1976, the protection was extended to 75 years.  In 1998, corporate holders get 120 years of protection from the date of creation.  If the original standard was still in place, songs from the 1950s would be entering the public domain.  World War 2 era music and before would all be in the public domain and not subject to a royalty “tax”.

Looks like time for some creative negotiation.

Saving “Black Radio”

Thursday, May 14th, 2009

Most people outside of the “Black Community” – even people in the Radio Biz, are oblivious to the “Black Radio” business.  Black Radio stations make no effort at diversity (reaching out beyond their own community) and typically have signals that don’t reach beyond the neighborhoods of high concentrations of Black Americans.   Most black talk radio hosts overtly express their hatred of white people on air, but it doesn’t matter.  Most non-Black people don’t listen to Black Radio and don’t know or don’t care.  Those that might are intimidated into submission.   Black radio stations starting to stream on the internet makes those expressions of racial hatred and racial stereotyping right out in plain view now – if people take the time to listen.

For about a year, Steve Malzberg (formerly at WABC and now at WOR), co-hosted a show on WWRL in New York City (The “Black” radio station in Harlem).   It was very interesting to hear the interaction with black listeners being confronted with a Jewish Conservative Republican on “their” radio station.  Steve learned many things he never knew about the black community, and both he and his audience are probably better for the experience, although it made for very uncomfortable listening.  His black female cohost purported to be a “Republican”, but that facade quickly fell apart under even the most superficial questioning, at which point the race baiting would start.  

A very important fight is going on in Congress today that should be of interest to everyone.   Representative John Conyers of Detroit has proposed an end to the exemption of “Over the Air” radio from paying artists (or the record labels) performance royalties for playing their music.   Internet streamers and Sirius/XM were forced into paying these fees – and the NAB gleefully supported that because they figured it would shut down their new digital competition in its tracks.  It hasn’t.  It HAS forced over the air radio stations to pay the performance fee on Internet Streaming of radio’s over the air stations – which they fought and recently conceded defeat on.  When you listen to music on the internet from a radio station, they now have to pay a royalty for using that music. 

Now the music business wants to end the last exception – free air play for “over the air” radio.  This is literally a “do or die” issue for Old Radio [the head of the NAB just quit suddenly - probably very much related to this].

The chickens have come home to roost.  Sirius/XM and Internet streamers (like Pandora and AOL) are making the case – and it has a lot of merit – that in 2009,  the music business is no longer what it was in the 1960s, and that “Music Radio” should be a level playing field.  If they have to pay, everyone should have to pay.  

The original reason for the exemption was it was negotiated to end the practice of “pay for play” or the nastier term “payola”.  Back in the day, the record labels were more than willing to pay radio stations and DJs to play their records (or supply cocaine, prostitutes, young boys, whatever it took).   Payola has never really ended, it just has become more clever.

Until the Internet arrived, young people found out about new songs on the radio, then would run to the local music store and buy the 45s and albums.   The pay for play practice was uncovered in the 1960s and given the name  “Payola” and made illegal.  It’s not illegal for a radio label to pay to have their music played – as long as the radio station discloses on the air that the station is being paid to play the music.  

The compromise that was worked out was that music labels cannot pay radio stations to play their music, and in return radio stations would not pay the music labels a fee for using the music to make their money.   The FCC license became a government monopy to make easy money. 

The artists got paid through their record labels from the sales of their records (maybe), but were not paid directly by radio stations that were making large profits from playing their music.   That amiable guy Dick Clark played a major role in negotiating that deal.  So that’s the background, more or less.  If you haven’t been to the mall lately or live in a cave, most music is no longer bought by going to a record store and buying a piece of plastic.  People sample new music and download it over the Internet and stuff it into their iPod.

So now to the interesting part.  I believe Representative Conyers in part raised this issue of ending this arrangement because he believes black music artists are being “ripped off” for their work by the Record Labels.   If radio has to pay to play music, that revenue might flow back directly to the artists in the black community.  It’s also very possible Conyers just wants to destroy “big radio” (like evil Conservative Clear Channel - the company that single handedly made Air America possible – ignorance is bliss)

Ah, but there is a complication.  How do you “tax” “white radio” for playing black music, but not also tax “black radio” for playing the same music?  Before reading any further, you need to understand the history of one company – Radio One – read its profile and history [here].   Radio One is “the” only large company that owns Black Radio stations.  Al Sharpton’s show appears on their stations, and all are targeted only at “urban” listeners. 

If the Performance Royalty exemption ends (Radio lobbyists at the NAB like to call it a “tax”), it will probably put Radio One out of business – they’re already teetering “on the edge” along with the rest of the big companies in radio.  

Maxine Waters – never one to hide her true motives – wants to tax “White Radio”, but exempt “Black Radio”.   Even if you accept the notion that corporate radio is somehow “White”, a discrimination in the law like that would never survive a legal challenge based on “equal protection” language.  They’re trying to figure out a way based on company size to racially discriminate without it looking like racial discrimination.

This dispute between Mr Conyers and Ms Waters has gotten very public and very ugly.  The NAB would love to fuel the internal fight within the Black Community to kill the idea, at least for this year.

Now, read [this thoughtful article] titled “Should we Save Black Radio?”, by a commentator within the black community.   Regardless of your opinion about the Performance Royalty or “Black Radio”, it is interesting reading.  Keep in mind that Tom Joyner works for Kathy Hughes.