The NAB says the answer to that question is yes. And, for years, there’s been a number of radio groups the NAB represents, that have been trying to convince The FCC to change the ownership rules. They say as the rules stand now, they are detrimental to competition, localism and diversity.
In new comments submitted to the Commission the NAB reiterated its 2019 position that the organization would like The Commission to:
- eliminate caps on AM ownership in all markets;
- permit a single entity to own up to eight commercial FM stations in Nielsen Audio 1-75 markets, with the opportunity to own two more FM stations through successful participation in the FCC’s incubator program; and
- remove restrictions on FM station ownership in Nielsen markets 76 and lower and in unrated areas.
The NAB says the current media ownership rules no longer enable broadcasters to viably operate in a competitive market or effectively serve the public interest.
The NAB also recommended that the FCC no longer retain per se restrictions that ban combinations among top-four rated TV stations, regardless of their audience or advertising shares, and that prevent ownership of more than two stations in all markets, regardless of their competitive positions.
In its comments, NAB argued that, with the decline in the newspaper industry, broadcast radio and television stations are among the few entities still capable of producing local news, weather, sports and emergency journalism. These newsgathering ventures require high capital and operating costs, which could be alleviated by leveraging economies of scale.
“In assessing competition, the FCC can no longer maintain the fiction that broadcast stations compete only against other broadcast stations,” said NAB in its comments. “Given the record evidence…the FCC must conclude that its local ownership rules are no longer necessary in the public interest as the result of competition.”
Not all broadcasters believe changing the rules to allow bigger groups to own more stations is the answer to increasing revenue for the industry. There are some that believe that deregulation was what harmed the local aspect of radio.
Really? What does the rank ‘n file think that we as a group of non-owners can do with this proposal? The big guys bought their way in back in 96, and they’ll do it again in ’21. Great that you ask this question, but it’s like saying your radio station needs FEWER COMMERCIALS. Great thoughts. No one’s gonna listen. The electronic media is in a very precarious position and the biggest victims? The listener.
You will never get more competition at any level when you allow companies to buy 6 stations at a time or sell 6 at a time. The only ones who buy and sell like that are the ones who already own all the radio stations. The barn door opened in 1996 and the only way to close it is to have more people owning radio stations, especially local people in that market. It’s obvious that most of the big companies only care about their profit margin. And the only way for them to achieve that is employ as few on air people as possible.
There’s an assumption being made that lifting ownership caps on AMs would entice people to buy AM stations. I don’t understand that at all. The ONLY way to get people to buy AMs is to require them to buy AMs in order to buy more FMs. Otherwise potential owners will avoid buying AMs.
It is impossible to take seriously the argument that lifting ownership caps leads to more local content. The opposite is so blatantly obvious as to call into question the integrity of those persons at NAB making the argument. Do they think the FCC and the rest of us are stupid?
Anyone who has run a multi-station cluster understands that 1+1=1.6 at best. I’ve seen clusters grow from two stations to 6 with little to no increase in billing a few years down the line. Budgets somehow get dispersed through all the stations instead of just the focused two. Local advertisers often dislike allocating all of their radio budgets to just one operator…and as budgets decline we all end up with less billing. I can only assume the NAB’s position is to give the big operators even more clout nationally and force the smaller operators out…but what do I know…?
Absolutely Not. Small market radio is already on its last legs. Competition is the only way. If you have one owner with several stations then you have one voice, one message which is really dangerous not only to the radio INDUSTRY but to American life. Major market radio needs to follow the same rules. If you want to buy a radio station make sure you hire people who know radio and are not hobbyists. Too many non-broadcast people are already involved. Do some dx-ing and listen.
Raising ownership limits in the past was *incredibly* unwise and led to demonstrably worse radio, so, sure. Let’s do it again.
Raising ownership limits made the most outstanding feature of the radio the OFF switch. Syndicated “garbage” pushed many listeners to the educational FM band or Sirius services..
Bonus: the interminable stop sets required to service the obscenely massive amounts of debt taken on by the iHearts of the world.
The local 4 station I-Hurt complex has only one real control room–and no local announcers.
Just about all programming is piped in from elsewhere, directly to an STL tower 2 miles from the “studio.”
While it would be nice to sell my AM/FM combo and retire, allowing one group to buy the other 12 stations in the market means I would just be undercut until I gave up and walked away with nothing.
One owner–all AM’s in any sized market? An AM with an FM translator is still viable for minority programmers, especially in markets 100 and up.
Less is better? That’s been proven detrimental to the industry. Tighten ownership restriction and allow more local competition. LPFM’s need to be turned loose.