Radio Homogenization

Radio homogenization is a trend towards sameness of programming within broadcast radio in the United States. It is largely an effect of the conglomeration of radio companies, particularly after the enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. After the controversial bill passed, regulations of limiting ownership were relaxed, and subsequently ownership of radio stations became greatly consolidated. A number of the resulting large radio companies have been accused of broadcasting less new music, emulating a same-ness on the airwaves. Consolidation has allowed the bigger companies to transition to a more profitable nationalized target marketing model, forcing local independent radio stations to adjust to the financial realities of their competitors. Corporate interests tend to lean towards choosing the efficiency and cost benefits of consolidation over the localized desires of listeners.

Background of consolidation

The federal government has regulated the extent of ownership for radio stations since the 1934 Communications Act.^[1] The policy was based on the notion that the airwaves were accessible to the public and therefor had an accompanying public trust.^[2] However, in the 1980s and early 1990s, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) began to gradually relax these limitations.^[3] The 1996 Telecommunications Act removed all national and local restrictions on national ownership that specified the number of stations one company could own in a set market. Before 1996, a company was prohibited from owning more than 40 stations, and from owning more than two AM and two FM stations in one market. The bill covered a wide range of formats and was the first time the Internet was included in broadcasting and spectrum allotment.^[4]

Lydia Polgreen's research indicates that the 1996 Telecommunications Act was one of the most lobbied bills in history. Media interests spent $34 million on campaign contributions for the 1995-96 election cycle—nearly 40% more than the previous election.^[4] According to Scherzinger, the public was hardly informed, as "the media covered the Telecommunications Act as a business technicality instead of a public policy story," assuring deregulation would increase competition and generate high-paying jobs.^[1] There was no discernible public debate.

Since deregulation, more than a third of all US radio stations have been bought and sold since 1996. In 1996 alone, 2045 radio stations were sold - a net value of $13.6 billion. Of the 4992 stations in the 268 set markets, almost half are now owned by a company owning three or more stations in the same market.^[4] By 2003, two companies, Clear Channel and the Infinity Broadcasting unit of Viacom, owned roughly half the nation's airwaves.^[1] This follows a general trend of Consolidation of Media Ownership, where corporate interests take president over the artistic integrity of the content. An analysis of a wide range of music professionals by Frontline illustrates this is especially true of the music industry.^[5]

According to Martin Scherzinger, "recorded music is the most concentrated global media market today."^[1] When he wrote this in 2005, six leading firms - PolyGram, EMI, Warner Music Group (a unit of AOL Time Warner), Sony Music Entertainment, BMG (a unit of Bertelsmann), and Universal Music Group (a unit of Vivendi) - were estimated to control between 80% to 90% of the global market.^[6] As of July 2013, the industry has consolidated even further. A series of mergers has reduced the big six to just three large corporations: Universal Music Group (now part of part of EMI's recorded music division), Sony Music Entertainment (EMI Publishing was absorbed into Sony/ATV Music Publishing), and Warner Music Group (which absorbed EMI's Parlophone and EMI/Vergin Classic labels).^[7] Most of these companies are part of larger conglomerates. Vertical concentration and horizontal integration allow cross pollination to promote products across multiple mediums. For instance, AOL Time Warner owns magazines, book publishing houses, film studios, television networks, cable channels, retail stores, libraries, sports teams etc., and can thus promote one through the utilization of another.

Effects

Programming

Scherzinger argues that cross-ownership and joint ventures tend to reduce competition, lower risk, and increase profits. He deduces that this "has forced musical production to succumb to the advertising, marketing, styling, and engineering techniques of increasingly uniform and narrow profit-driven criteria."^[1] New technology has allowed a station’s technician to cut and paste news, weather and host chatter into pre-recorded programming. Companies have greatly benefited from Top 40, national news, and sports programming shows that can be purchased at the national level.^[8] News programming in particular is often produced and recorded at a remote location, as the practice streamlines the number of personalities needed on the air, and emulates a similar feel for the listener. This process of regionalized programming is referred to as voice tracking. However, this increase in cost-efficiency is the result of cutting staff and centralizing programming decisions for what is deemed worthy to be broadcast.^[9] The music-loving DJ playing whatever they feel fits the mood is largely fictional at any major station at this point in time. Billboard Magazine reported that the mainstream press has accused several large radio conglomerates of playing less new music since the Telecommunications Act of 1996.^[10] Consolidation has made it even less likely that one will hear something new, different, or unique.

The number of formats provided by radio stations increased in all markets between 1996 and 2000.^[1] However, an in-depth case study from the Future of Music Coalition shows that the quantitative focus on formats alone hides from view the interconnections between formats. Despite different names, formats overlap and have similar playlists. For example, alternative, Top 40, rock, and hot adult contemporary are all likely to play songs by [similar bands], even though their formats are not the same.^[3] The Future of Music Coalition reports an analysis of charts in Radio and Records and Billboard's Airplay Monitor revealed considerable playlist overlap - as much as 76% - between supposedly distinct formats.^[1] The study concludes that by allowing unlimited national consolidation, there has been less competition, fewer viewpoints, and a decrease in diversity in radio programming. The report, titled False Premises, False Promises: A Quantitative History of Ownership Consolidation in the Radio Industry, also says that radio consolidation has no added benefits for DJ’s, programmers and musicians working in the music industry.^[3]

Polgreen says that for listeners, the most readily apparent result of consolidation is the rise of cookie cutter playlists. Teams of market researchers strategically compile playlists to be as widely appealing as possible rather than base the song choices on merit. For example, on an oldies show, probably the most heavily researched and systematized format in radio, classic hits will be played almost every day, while critically acclaimed songs by the same bands get little or no play. What one hears has been carefully crafted to appeal to targeted demographic groups for that station.^[4] Indeed, format competition and subsequent adaption of similar formats has become a major facet of modern radio.^[11]

As companies seek to extend their demographic reach, they tend to promote music with "general" appeal. While this seems relatively neutral and unproblematic at first glance - Scherzinger juxtaposes a best case scenario (tunes that are genuinely popular) with a worst case scenario (bland content) - music under these conditions is in fact subject to highly restrictive aesthetic codes and cultural judgments of those in positions of authority.^[1] Scherzinger asserts that music with these kinds of standardized ingredients, "gain considerable airplay on radio channels whose ownership is most consolidated."^[1] He continues, that "far from reflecting a neutral and general taste in music, this stabilized aesthetic tends to mediate the tastes of a highly particular demographic, namely, the social sector with disposable income: predominantly white, middle-class, heterosexual, 18-to-45-year-old males."^[1] Thus when economic criteria drive programming decisions, it stands to reason that radio play, media coverage, and sales will be directed toward the most lucrative demographics. Trade publication Variety observed, "A huge wave of consolidation has turned music stations into cash cows that focus on narrow playlists aimed at squeezing the most revenue from the richest demographics.... Truth be told, in this era of megamergers, there has never been a greater need for a little diversity on the dial"^[12]

In a recent survey of how much new music is added to Top 40 stations each week, Billboard/Airplay Monitor discovered that smaller groups and individually owned stations add and play more new songs each week. But there are also some prominent exceptions and a wide variance within certain groups. In general, the trend is towards more conservative, less aggressive releases of new material.^[10]

National advertising model

Radio tends to get a majority of their revenue from advertising. Polgreen claims that from the 1996 Telecom Act commercial radio broadcasters sought the ability to form national media companies that could transition radio to a national advertising model. Media companies could then pitch their stations to both local and national advertisers. A company with multiple stations in one city now allows marketing firms to approach the parent company who provide them with a pinpointed target audience that they are looking to market too through a specific station and time slot. Expanded to a national level, this advertising model generates many more leads for marketers at a fraction of the time and energy that going to individual stations would require.^[4] A study on the impact of ownership rules following the 1996 Telecom Act found that the biggest area of change following the first few years of unrestrained consolidation was at the negotiation of advertising rates.^[13]

Scherzinger contends that marketing branches of music companies no longer are purely administrative role. Instead, he argues that "through intricate applications of management theory - supervising and measuring data - marketers settle priorities, make aesthetic judgments, and select musical forms." Marketers are increasingly deciding what music gets attention.

Radio has always had to balance listeners' desires with the need to deliver a predictable audience to advertisers. In the past, if listeners felt a song was too monotonous or repetitive, they could tune to a different station. Now, however, there is less choice available, and that song might be playing on a nearby station. The radio spectrum is a limited and publicly owned commodity. Since there is a definite amount of space on the radio spectrum, big companies have an incentive to dominate as much of it as they can.^[8]

Polgreen asserts that the buying frenzy following the Telecom Act drove up station prices beyond the reach of the typical entrepreneur, making it difficult for station owners to resist the financial pressures to sell. As a result, only dedicated local owners have survived.^[4] However, the advent of low-power FM stations (LPFMs) offers an alternative for listeners. By broadcasting at well under 100 watts (the minimum for commercial stations is set at 100 watts), these independent run stations could be an antidote to radio consolidation, as they are local stations dealing with local issues. The Federal Communications Commission seems to be sympathetic to single station owners, and its chairman, William Kennard, has taken steps to encourage further diversity in ownership by proposing to create three new classes of licenses for LPFMs.^[4]

Alternatives

With increasingly homogenized radio programming, many listeners have opted for alternative audio platforms in leu of traditional radio. One of these alternative formats, LPFMs (low-power FM stations) is a promising alternative. By broadcasting at well under 100 watts (the minimum for commercial stations is set at 100 watts), these independently run stations could be an antidote to radio consolidation, as they are local stations dealing with local issues. The Federal Communications Commission seems to be sympathetic to single station owners, and its chairman, William Kennard, has taken steps to encourage further diversity in ownership by proposing the creation of three new classes of licenses for LPFMs.[2]

Other less homogenized formats can be found through satellite radio, as well as internet radio formats like podcasts. Other streaming services like Pandora and Spotify are becoming increasingly popular.

Paradigm shift

Artists that experienced success in the industry prior to the 1996 Telecommunications Act, such as David Crosby of Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young and Don Henley of The Eagles, have brought to light what they believe are contributing to the nation-wide homogenization of music. Crosby tells PBS in an interview, "When it all started, record companies - and there were many of them, and this was a good thing - were run by people who loved records, people like Ahmet Ertegun, who ran Atlantic Records, who were record collectors. They got in it because they loved music.... Now record companies are run by lawyers and accountants."^[5] This view highlights a common theme that creativity and passion have been subverted by the financial incentives of corporatized media companies. Chief executives of large record labels often have no musical or cultural background. A head of Universal Vivendi, Jean René Fourtou, was previously in pharmaceuticals. Gunter Thielen, the former head of Bertelsmann, previously managed the company's printing and industrial operations.^[1]

See also

• Concentration of Media Ownership
• Radio in the United States
• Future of Music Coalition
• Prometheus Radio Project
• Low-power broadcasting
• iHeartMedia

References