Video didn't kill the radio star; it was the Telecom Act

There is this quote that I have been hanging onto for a while:

“The Telecom Act profoundly affected the radio business, removing station ownership caps, and unleashing an unprecedented wave of consolidation. Radio deregulation left the public airwaves dominated by less than a handful of companies—Clear Channel, Cumulus, Citadel and Viacom—who laid off hundreds, decimated community programming and all but standardized playlists across the country. Average listening time plunged. FCC Chair Reed Hundt had justified the legislation by arguing “We are fostering innovation and competition in radio.” But by all accounts, KMEL’s innovative years were over, and competition, the driving force of that innovation, was about to end.”

This is from Jeff Chang's Can't Stop Won't Stop: A History of the Hip Hop Generation. The funny thing is that I read that before I even started reviewing bands, though I think the writing was on the wall.

I think about this when no one can find anything good on the radio, I think about this when no one has heard of bands that are really quite good, and I think about it when Tara Dublin writes about saving radio.

http://radioinsight.com/blog/blogs/88194/fixing-radio-the-importance-of-keeping-it-local/

I have tried researching the act, and there are several crazy things about it. It sounds like a Reagan thing, but was signed by Clinton. It's purpose was given as fostering competition, but it failed miserably. We have gone from about fifty major media companies in 1983 to six in 2005. To be fair, it was ten in 1996 when the Telecom Act was passed.

It's not that it was paradise before. I know about the payola scandal and hearings of 1960, and I know about band managers getting DJs drugs and hookers a decade or so later. Those with money still always seem to be able to find a way to make an advantage. However, having corporations set standard playlist that are full of acts that will appeal to the lowest common denominator isn't really ideal either.

In 1987, Z100 played the same pop tunes almost hourly. They were songs that I liked, so it worked for me, but I had a friend who was really into KISS and AC/DC, and it drove him nuts. Also, they would throw the Last Chance Summer Dance in Waterfront Park, and that was a good time.

In 1991, I was at school in Eugene, and I heard songs on the radio that I would never hear when I was at home, and that wasn't only on the college station. There were live people who picked songs to play, and how much their station managers influenced them varied, but it gave a personality and a flavor to the place where you were.

As we get past that fateful date, I am struggling to think of a time and place where radio mattered, and was a good thing, and I can't. I can come up with some very annoying memories, like a morning crew talking about how deep Taylor Swift lyrics are, but if I wanted my blood boiling with rage and contempt I would be listening to talk radio.

I do care about distribution of music, and opportunities for exposure for new bands, but it goes beyond that. People were laid off, then and more recently. People who are still working now need other gigs to survive. That's not helpful in a constrained economy.

It's not particularly good for advertisers either. If you know good music is coming, good local updates, and likable personalities, you stick around through commercials. There is no reason to have that kind of patience.

In yesterday's post, I could have written a lot about the perils and effects on society of losing newspapers as a reliable source of news, and that could still happen, but I think the recurring theme between yesterday and today is that when owners only care about making money, they don't make much of value other than that.

Invigorated radio might not make more money than what you have now, but it could make enough to survive, and it would be worth a lot more. I would like having it around.