The power of conglomeration

Television networks and motion picture companies have been consumed by conglomerates that basically own the industry. These major ownerships control the production of multiple mass media outlets that are combined under one brand name. Independent companies, or otherwise known as “Indies”, are the few exceptions that stand alone in the industry. Unfortunately, they cannot compete with the profits that conglomerates rake in.

One of the leading conglomerates is NBC Universal. The home page of their website displays over 30 logos of networks in which they control and operate. According to their website, they own and operate NBC Television Network, the spanish broadcasting television network called Telemundo, an array of cable networks such as Bravo, E!, MSNBC, and Oxygen, the Weather Channel company, and all related NBC programs. Also, they own Universal Pictures and additional media outlets such as Hulu. The list continues expressing how much their control extends into a chunk of media companies. With Universal’s widespread ownership, they have an advantage by having set advertisers in which they can use for multiple networks, cutting costs and increasing their profits. Also, they can advertise for one of their shows on NBC , such as The Biggest Loser on the Oxygen channel. This explains the power of the few conglomerations that control media networks.

http://www.nbcuni.com/about-us/

Conglomeration within the Film Industry

Before the “Big Six” was created, the “Big Five” and “Little Three” existed. The “Big Five” consisted of five major film studios. This included 20^th Century Fox, Warner Brothers, and Paramount. The “Little Three” consisted of smaller film studios, which included Columbia and Universal. Walt Disney Studios was not even a part of either of these, because it was an independent production.

By 1994, Paramount, Warners, Columbia, and Universal had created a chain of conglomeration. Paramount merged with Viacom while Warners merged with Time, Inc to become Time Warner. Tri-Star and Orion combined to form Columbia. However when Columbia went bankrupt, they sold the studio to MGM. Sony also made its way onto the scene during this time.

The merge of these film studios created major movie houses within the industry. The “Big Six” controls most of the film industry now, but there are other film studios, or independents, that are also a part of the movie market. These include Dreamworks. According to the Movie Market Summary on the following link, the movie industry has had some interesting trends. Since 2002, the annual total tickets sold have gone down. Though in the last two years, the annual revenue for movies has gone up. Without the movies becoming conglomerates, they would not be as successful.

Bibliography

· The Numbers - Movie Market Summary 1995 to 2011. (n.d.). The Numbers - Movie Box Office Data, Film Stars, Idle Speculation. Retrieved February 28, 2011, from http://www.the-numbers.com/market/

How has Conglomeration Changed the Movie and Television Industry?

Conglomeration has changed the industry because it has changed the total quality of a product. Instead of a group that specialized in quality sound or quaility picture creating a product by themselves, todays product is the combined work of several groups that all do one thing well and together make a complete product. Companies that work together have the same stake in the product doing well, so their contribution is vital and needs to be of the highest quality. It ios easy to notice the change of quality in the films available in this ever more conglomerated world
3D movies is a prime example of conglomeration changing the industry. A company that specialized in creating a three dimensional film became part of the group working together to create a film, a piece that adds to the total quality of the product. Although the 3D is only a part of the movie making process, an entire company is given the responsibility of ensuring that this part works as well as possible.
At the beginning of many movies, you can see several of the companies that worked on the film. An example is when the THX logo comes on the screen and then the viewer knows that this company did work on the sound.

Conglomeration of the movie and television industry

Over the past two decades, there have been widespread concerns about a continuing and seemingly accelerating trend of the conglomeration of television and movie industry around the world. It is interesting that Bagdikian and his book The Media Monopoly was first published in 1980 and the sixth edition in year 2000.
There are both advantages and disadvantages of conglomeration towards the moive and television industry. Conglomeration provides economies of scale. For example, a larger television station bears a relatively lower operating cost. It is because many small stations and small departments share the same resources. In addition, large station has deep pockets and it can afford to those small units to overcome the non-profitable periods. Therefore, the conglomeration can ensure a steady profit of the company, and sometimes very profitable.
On the other hand, conglomeration brings negative effects to the movie and television industry. I think it forces those larger companies to focus on the bottom line, but not quality of programs. The quality of some programs is really reduced. Also, the number of different programs may be reduced and makes the programs too homogenous. It is because programs produced by the same television stations probably do not have a great variety. Indirectly, this brings bad effect to the audiences as they explore to fewer types of programs.  

Motion Industry and The Effects of Conglomeration

Conglomeration has changed the movie and television industries since the rivalries seen at the birth of television broadcasting. This rivalry began in the 1950s, sparked by the large decreases in movie ticket sales. Hollywood feared that television broadcasting would take over leaving the film industry out for bankruptcy. Eventually these barriers fell and different networks began to show "potential synergies" as The Media of Mass Communication states. As companies began buying each other out, this conglomeration reached the masses in ways never done before. Popular movies produced by a studio began influencing television series broadcast on networks owned by the studio and visa verse. Tyler Perry is a perfect example of someone utilizing both of these mediums.
Perry was able to create his own brand and produce movies and television series by targeting a specific audience, middle class married African American women to be exact. By using these tactics and taking over both industries he has become a pioneer of motion media and is now working towards owning his own network. Many other companies have followed with the trend of utilizing both the television and film industries. For example, Disney studios has created many feature length films that have also been shown on their television networks, or have been turned into a television series. The wide range of audience members has generated huge profits for the major conglomerates and has in turn extinguished the fears of Hollywood suffering major losses.

Profitability of conglomeration

In the television and film industry there are only a couple of large companies. These conglomerates as they are called are so large they tend to own a wide variety of other companies. Take Viacom for instance, which owns and operates such TV channels as MTV, VH1, BET, Comedy Central, and much more. The uniformed and uneducated consumer may and highly likely thinks that these channels are competing with one another for the similar programming and time of the consumers.
Benefits to conglomeration to the studios include cheaper production costs given that they have several in house companies doing a lot of the production. They are able to sign contracts with sponsors and use those sponsorships and a variety of programming. It makes things easier for advertisers, celebrities, the production houses, and a variety of others. This is why smaller studios may generally have a much harder time, and larger expenses then their conglomerate competitors.
Today conglomerates can advertise programming on a variety of shows that seem independent to drive sales, profit from merchandising, and develop hype for a variety of programming and films and open amusement parks to profit enormously. Consumers beware of little freedom within conglomerate viewpoints and expression.

Conglomeration: affiliate or not?

“Conglomeration is the process of companies being brought into common ownership but remaining distinct entities.” (The Mass Media of Communication, John Vivian) In poor economic times like today, it is beneficial for the movie and television industry to be bought and run by conglomerates. Conglomerates allows movie and television companies that are in financial distress, flourish by merging them with the rest of their companies that are owned by that one conglomerate. Conglomeration is also a positive thing in the respects that they have more money to put into the movie and television industry, which in turn creates more revenue for the industry. Another positive aspect is that even though they are part of a conglomerate they can still maintain their autonomy. All of the big six movie studios minus Disney are a part of mega-conglomerates. For example Paramount Pictures is a part of Viacom, and Columbia Pictures is a part of Sony Pictures. The success of these conglomerations is due to the aggressiveness and the dire need for probability by its leadership. Also the shareholders drive the need, which puts more pressure on the conglomerates to succeed financially. The idea of a conglomerate is to make a profit and keep afloat.

Old verses New

In the age of ever changing forms of technology the print industry is still producing books, newspapers, and magazines, but the Internet, e-Readers, iPads, and similar devices questions the print industry’s importance to our society. Many believe that these new forms of technology will dwindle the print industry’s profits, which will in turn lead to the inevitable down fall of the industry itself. However, what many people do not realize is that people are still buying printed objects. New technologies for reading books, news, and magazines have been seen to be more economically beneficial, which the printing industry has recognized this and surprisingly lower their prices.

With major book companies such as Borders filing for bankruptcy, brings the question to many peoples’ minds of will the print industry survive? Yes, the print industry has suffered a significant loss to newer technologies, but has realized ways to appeal to people to buy printed materials. Books have significantly decreased in price, which has helped gain the popularity in buying books again. Many people switched to devices like e-Readers, iPads, etc. because they seemed to be financially more beneficial in the long run. However, what many people do not realize now is that paperback books are actually cheaper than digital copies of books. An average price for digital copies of books is around $9.99 and can even be higher. I personally went to a Borders store a few days ago and bought three well-respected novels all under 5 dollars. By lowering the costs of printed material will enable them have a competitive edge over newer technology.

How has conglomeration changed the movie and television industry?

Media conglomeration is when a corporation owns a large number of companies in various mass media, such as television, radio, publishing, movies, and the Internet.  Walt Disney, Time Warner, News Corporation and Viacom are all examples of large media conglomerates.  Conglomeration is not necessarily seen as a good thing, although it has allowed or advertisers to strive and reach a wider audience and the creation of many more stations to interest different types of viewers, it has closed the door to many up-coming small businesses in the television and movie industry, and it is hard for them to break that barrier.  Conglomeration may be seen as a bad thing in this perspective, but it has revolutionized the movie and television industry.  It allows companies to give audiences many different service options to choose from.  Conglomeration has clearly caused the industry to grow,  and although it may have some faults, it is definitely seen as a good thing.

Impact of a Recession on Media Companies

Impact of a Recession on Media Companies

The state of our economy can make or break media companies. However, it depends on the financial state of the company. Recessions and inflation can take its toll on media companies, but smart advertising and sales strategies help. But the underlying contributor to the success of a media company is money. The combination of money and smart advertising and sales strategies is what helps a media company survive during tough economic times. Many believe that when our economy is in a recession, media companies will have difficulty selling their products; however, usually it is the opposite effect and companies receive a better revenue stream.

The word recession is defined as a decline in economic activity, but this is not always true when it comes to certain products. Usually during a recession, people seek some sort of entertainment to take them away from the realities of what is going on in our country. This is why many media companies survive and strive during a recession; however, it takes money and wise advisement in advertising and sales strategies in order for a media company to succeed. During times like recessions, media companies’ main objective is to appeal to mass audiences, so they invest a considerable amount of money into their advertising campaigns. This will only work if the company is financially stable to invest in its campaign, but for media companies that are just starting out will probably not succeed unless their product is in dire need. The better the advertising, the better the sales, which is how a media company will survive during tough economic times.

Deregulation of the Radio Industry: Positive or Negative Outcome?

Deregulation has changed the radio and the record industry in many ways both positive and negative. The invention of the radio changed the world by a storm. The radio became the medium for entertainment and news. During its prime-time, everyone had at least one radio in his or her household. This new technology changed the record industry because eventually people could hear new music on the radio instead of buying records. However, newer technologies such as the television caused the radio to have decreased importance as the main medium for entertainment and news.

Even though the radio industry is not the main medium for entertainment and news, the industry has still flourished for many reasons specifically deregulation. Deregulation allowed radio companies to purchase and own multiple stations within the same genre (talk, sports, music stations). Before deregulation companies that owned radio stations were allowed to only own one radio station in each genre. With this form of regulation out of the way allowed the radio industry to survive. Being allowed to purchase and own multiple stations within the same genre helped the companies cover the costs they spent on the radio industries, creating a better revenue stream. The one major down side of deregulation is that there really is no censorship of what is said and played on the radio. Before, when the radio was at its prime-time it was taboo to swear and talk about certain things on the radio such as sex, alcohol, etc. Today certain obscenities are said on the radio, even though it is technical not allowed it still happens. Yes, certain obscenities and topics are bleeped out, but it is very hard to censor what people listen to, particularly children. As a whole deregulation enabled the radio industry, to survive financially, but at the same time it undermined the importance of censorship on certain topics.

Conglomeration changing the movie and television industry

In these economic times, the term ‘conglomerate’ spurs both positive and negative arguments in regards to the movie and television industry. Corporations with heavy capital, such as Viacom, have had the ability to acquire smaller companies with limited capital in an effort to increase profit margins and expand audiences around the world.

Conglomeration has allowed large companies such as Viacom to promote new television series such as ‘True Life’ through a movie showing that was produced by Paramount Pictures. Conglomeration has given large media companies the ability to target, diversify, and expand the way in which they promote their products through various outlets (i.e. television channels and movies). This technique, although cost effective for conglomerates, ultimately limits choice for the viewer.

From a business venture, conglomeration has allowed smaller companies to become subsidiaries of these larger corporations, increasing exposure, marketability, thus driving profits. In the most recent recession, many smaller companies who may have faced bankruptcy have had the opportunity to merge with larger corporations, continuing business operations while maintaining a portion of control.

These mergers and acquisitions can be looked upon as very profitable for conglomerates, but have the ability to silence smaller companies. Those who act independently, with limited capital, lack the ability to target large audiences and create mass appeal in both the movie and television industry. Conglomeration has the ability to both help and hinder the smaller company in either case.

-Patrick Morgan

The positive and negative aspects of deregulation

Deregulation has ultimately allowed for the large conglomerate radio stations to acquire the smaller station in an attempt to gain both market share and the audiences they reach. Deregulation brings both positive and negative implications that inevitably affect us, the listener.

From a positive standpoint, deregulation has allowed corporations to increase their bottom line and profit margins by acquiring a large number of smaller stations that branch across the United States. These acquisitions and mergers have allowed conglomerates to control a wider audience in regards to the news, music, and advertisements they hear. The greater control in the airwaves makes for greater leverage in these stations. With greater leverage, these conglomerates have the ability to both target and manipulate audiences.

Although deregulation has allowed larger corporations to flourish, the audience is limited to a diverse voice and opinion of unaffiliated radio stations. As a listener, we have limited control as to what transmits through the airwaves. With limited control, makes us vulnerable to bias news.

Deregulation can be looked at from both a positive and negative standpoint. As the listener, it is our obligation to recognize the limitations of opinion through deregulation while understanding the positive aspects through a business standpoint.

-Patrick Morgan

Conglomeration advantages and disadvantages

Conglomeration has change the industry in the fields of movies and television in such that now both industries can combine into one big company that can do multiple things. For instance if a particular movie and television industry were to combine they can put out a television show then sometime down the road the movie side of the corporation can make a movie of the television show. But along with conglomeration come many advantages and disadvantages. Some of the advantages are that there is diversification, which can result in the reduction of investment risk. Also a conglomerate can create internal capital market if one of the external companies are not developed fully. A conglomerate can also show the growth of earnings, this is by acquiring companies who have shares that are more discounted then their own. Some of the disadvantages are that Culture clashes can destroy the value of the company; the extra layers of management can increase costs. This is big in the movie and television industry in that they are already paying boatloads of money to produce shows and movies that they don’t want to have to pay more money when they don’t need to. But in the long run by conglomeration both industries will profit off of it because they will be able to widen the spectrum of their companies which means that they will be able to produce more shows and movies at once.

Conglomeration with TV and Movie Industry

How has conglomeration changed the movie and television industry? For starters a lot of the media we see and hear today has trended towards conglomeration. In many ways conglomeration can be a positive change for the television and movie industry because it increases their profit when they own more than one company. However, like any decision people make there are negatives that push people away from joining companies. Creativity is one loss; some people feel that if you put all these television and movie companies together, it will be harder to see diversity. With independent companies, it clearly shows what makes them different from any other station or producer.

An example of conglomeration posted on "www.uwlax.edu" states, "that is why American broadcast networks have been so keen to create or to acquire sister cable channels on which they can repackage their content. Such channels helped News Corporation, for instance, to draw bigger audiences to “24”, a cleverly crafted drama series set in a counter-terrorism unit. Made by Fox television and aired on the Fox network, the series is repeated throughout the week on FX, Fox's cable channel. The principle also applies internationally. MTV, for instance, owned by Viacom, has already attracted its best-ever American audiences to “The Osbournes”, an oddly compelling reality-TV show depicting the baffling antics of a former heavy-metal singer and his family. MTV now plans to show the hit series on its channels around the world."This ultimately enables more viewers across the world, and can essentially help the television make more money.

Although it helps companies make more of a profit, it continues to lack originality for various companies. Many individuals fear that all television and movie companies will be too much to handle if they all turn to conglomeration. It poses the question- although profitable, is MTV really "music television" anymore?

-Taylor Johnson

Conglomeration changes in the TV and movie industries

Media conglomeration has had mostly a positive impact on the movie and television industries. Major media conglomerates such as Disney, Viacom, and Time Warner now control many media venues in the television, cable, film and internet industries. Before conglomeration, movie companies felt a rivalry with television for audience attention. But in 1954 Disney joined forces with the ABC television network and began producing Disney TV series and movies for TV, which I fondly remember watching every Sunday night. This was a major milestone in the merge of these two industries, and others followed in their footsteps shortly thereafter. Another benefit of the alliance of television and movie media within a conglomeration is now actors can work in both TV and film, where at one time they only focused on one of them. A totally new concept in the entertainment industry with the convergence of television and movies being under the same ownership umbrella now were television shows turning into movies and movies turning into television shows within the same conglomeration. All of these changes benefited the audience with more television stations and movie companies offering a more diverse variety of programming to choose from. These partnerships also afforded the companies more revenue from advertisers as it opened up the market to a bigger audience. However with these huge conglomerates controlling the television and movie industries, the downfall is there isn’t much room for smaller, independent movie and TV companies to thrive.

Conglomeration good or bad?

How has conglomeration changed the movie and television industry?

Media conglomeration is when big companies buy up all of the little companies. Having only these big companies works to their advantage because they are able to self advertise. Take Disney for example: Disney movies, Disney's singers, and Disney products are advertised on Disney channel and vise versa. Disney can afford to have no outside advertisers on their channel because they are such a huge company and can use all of the space to self advertise, it is specialized advertising as well. The audience for all of their products are the same, there for they know they are reaching the right audience. This ends up being good for their viewers as well because they do not have to see commercials that they do not want to see, instead, they see music videos by the singers that Disney employes.

Is this always a good thing? Not if your someone who wants to see variety. Conglomeration has made it so that all of the big companies like, The Walt Disney Company, Time Warner and the News Corporation can own almost everything. With these big companies owning everything you will not see variety, you will see them selling to their target audiences. You will not see independent shows or movies most of the time.

Deregulation Changing the Industry for the Better

We have seen deregulation both positively and negatively affect the radio and recording industry. It has been a good thing for some larger recording companies because deregulation allows for them to acquire ownership of smaller companies. Thus expanding theirs business and becoming more successful. A beneficial outcome of the larger companies expansion has been an increase in product quality as well as revenue. Another benefit is a maintenance or increase in job opportunity. If the larger companies had not bought out the smaller ones many would go out of business, creating job loss.

Nevertheless, the deregulation in the recent years has also adversely affected the recording industry. It has hurt new artists who are trying to get a foot in the door. It is harder to jump in at the top level of something when as it is in most industries you have to start out at the bottom and work your way up. Without these small radio stations for artists to start at, many will find it difficult to become recognized artists.

Even with the negative affects that deregulation is having on rising artists. In the long run it is helping the recording industry. It is strengthening the existing companies and allowing for their success, which is sustaining the industry itself.

Deregulation

Former President Ronald Reagan started this deregulation “trend” during his presidency in attempts to separate government influence on businesses. Deregulation has effected the radio industry for years and has brought constant controversy to who the FCC grants ownership. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 changed the way the radio functions. Without deregulation I imagine that the majority of broadcast news would have a governmental twist on the information being voiced. Now that there is a limit on how many stations a single market can have (maximum of eight per market) I feel that the radio industry has grown stronger. With the prominent radio stations attracting more and more viewers only one thing can come from this, revenue. With the abundance of stations it is easy for individual listeners to find one that attracts their certain preferences. By attracting viewers stations gain advertising dollars. Deregulation has been a key factor in this expansion of the radio industry. It is very similar to other media companies such as Viacom which is a huge company that owns many smaller branches. I found an interesting website which focuses on this topic of deregulation. (I have attached the link at the bottom of this blog.)

http://photodude.com/2003/05/29/20-years-of-radio-deregulation

Deregulation in Radio

I feel that deregulations is both good and bad. It allows for larger radio companies to own and run the smaller companies that may not otherwise have a chance to be heard. However with the same few companies owning virtually all other radio stations, it does not allow for the specific voice that may only be heard by smaller more independent radio stations. Also, the radios stations may take on the same political, social, and economic views as their owners, creating a voice that is not unique and independent. Another pitfall of deregulation that the text pointed out is that it makes stations focus more on profits than the quality of their broadcast. Many stations would run a long series of ads just to raise their profit margins.

deregulation: making the radio and recording industry way better.

Deregulation is all in all a really good thing. I get that some people get offended by this or that on the radio but if you do not like it, turn it off. By decreasing the Goverment rules that constrain the limits of radio and recording, you get a wider audience interest. No one is going to listen to cookie cutter boring radio shows or songs or what have you. The stuff that sells and the stuff that people are interested in is racy stories, songs, shows, all of that. They want things that are scandalous and that will shock people, not stuff that they are "allowed" to hear by the Government. Freedom of speech is a big deal in this country and i think it is wrong for the Government to put restrictions on that just because the radio and recording industry can be publicly accessed. Deregulation has allowed radios and the recording industry to air things that everyone is thinking, but do not say aloud. I think it's changed the radio and recording industry for the better because it makes it more interesting and enjoyable for listeners, even though there are still some constraints.

Deregulation? Yes Please

Deregulation has allowed the radio and recording industry to expand like never before. The government had a pretty tight leash on the business' around the 1980s and seemed to really effect the radio and recording industry. However Ronald Reagan implemented a deregulation for these business' and in turn allowed the radio industry to thrive.
Deregulating this industry allowed for companies to buy each other and grow, but with a limit of 8 stations to a single market. With companies buying more radio stations more radio stations kept popping up. This created a large base for people all around the country to listen to many many different types of radio.
This also lead to a few other things such as more advertising, public service announcements, and airing different opinions about controversial issues which is part of the Trusteeship concept (John Vivian).

Deregulate for the Masses

In terms of deregulation in the radio industry, it seems to have had two effects. On one hand it has made it such that one company can own and operate a variety of radio stations throughout a state, region, or the country. This opens up a wide variety of advertising opportunity and large audiences, and can help condence costs helping to save money, in situations in which if each station was independent would be much more costly.

In terms of disadvantages involved, there are probably less people who need employment in the industry, only several large companies viewpoints are likely to be expressed, and there is less of a sense of individualism and more of a collective movement. America's Top 40 songs will play over and over, and only several veiwpoints will likely be expressed.

One might hope for more independent radio stations to start, but overall they will likely not be able to compete with the large and present radio companies who have a hold on the market. As a consumer would you like to listen to independent radio companies? Will the future of radio be more focused on content or advertising?

In what way has deregulation changed the radio and recording industry?

I think the deregulation of the radio industry has strengthened the radio. It has allowed larger companies to become even larger by buying and taking over the smaller radio companies.  This is kind of like becoming a monopoly in the radio world. By expanding their companies and revenue, it brings in more listeners therefore strengthening their power. he deregulation gave the industry more freedom because the industries can only keep growing and appealing to more and more audiences. There are so many different stations that reach out to many different groups of people, and yet the same company could own them all.  Expanding their stations expands their audience and that expands their income.


-Caty Draicchio

Ups and Downs of Deregulation

Deregulation has changed this industry for better and for worse. Under deregulation larger companies can own more than one smaller company that can’t survive on its own. This allows for more income and better things for consumers. Also this allows for job creation because if the larger companies don’t buy the smaller companies then they go bankrupt and out of business, thus people become unemployed. The worst part about deregulation is for the artists and up and coming artists. Nowadays its easy for the artists that have been in the business for along time to be able to record their music when they want and to be able to get it out to consumers. But the problem is for the up and coming artists. It’s hard for them to get discovered and known due to the deregulation. This is because these artists usually start off on smaller stations before they work their way up to the bigger one. Artists start off smaller because they want to see how people react and who listening to their music. Also its free advertising for them on the smaller radios because people will come to them to ask to play their music. But due to deregulation the smaller companies aren’t their anymore thus making it harder for them to become known.

Different radio stations with the same music

In what way has deregulation changed the radio and the recording industry?

Deregulation has changed the radio and recording industry because one company can own multiple other companies without the public knowing. Radio stations can feature guest singers that they actually employ in another section of the company. Why would a radio company pay to feature someone when they could have someone they already pay? This is also advertising for the singers that they feature on that radio show. When people hear them talk they feel that they are getting to know them, and like them better.

Deregulation also eliminates small radio stations and recording companies as well; all of the small companies are bought up. Small radio and recording studios assure variety. With deregulation there is no variety, you hear the same songs by the same artists on two different radio stations that are owned by the same company. I would rather have different radio stations with different songs and different types of music, but we see that going away with deregulation.

The effect of deregulation on today's radio

The radio and recording industry’s relationship with the FCC, or Federal Communications Commission, has been ever-changing since the public radio emerged in the 1920’s. The means of their relationship was permanently altered when a trend called deregulation presented itself 60 years later in the 1980’s. Deregulation is a slow progression of reducing government’s control and regulation on the radio industry. Today, it’s control is significantly reduced.

Radio companies, such as Clear Channel, can own no more than 8 stations in a market. Though, they have bended that rule by merging with other companies to maximize station ownership, creating corporate chains. In the 1920’s, the number was strictly limited. Also, these stations had to own a license for their station. The license required the station to only broadcast in their specific frequency and also restricted the content of material the station produced depending on public interest. If the station did not follow the license’s rules, they could be removed from the radio. So, why has the FCC calmed it’s restrictions on radio companies?

Radio was a new technology back in the 1920’s in which the range of frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum was a mystery. This created a channel scarcity, which is when there are an insufficient number of frequencies therefore needing the FCC to license and limit the present stations. Though, with advancement in radio technology, there are plenty of frequencies available now allowing a wider range of stations, increasing the number of listeners and reducing FCC’s control.

Deregulation: Changing the Radio and Recording Industries

The deregulation of the radio and recording industries has allowed for much more freedom for artists and consumers. According to The Media of Mass Communication, the deregulation, or reduced government regulation of businesses, trend began in the 1980s and continued through the 1990s into the early 2000s. Before this deregulation, many artists were not free to record what they wanted due to the overwhelming A&R units at the major labels. Serge Denisoff uses his book Solid Gold to quote an executive on the power labels had over artists in the 1950s explaining that artists like Peggy Lee would be told when to come to the studio, would sing what they were told and the label would do what they wanted with the tracks from there. Similarly with the radio, the government had regulation over what was played on a radio station with the constant threat of losing broadcasting rights.
As artists began creating their own labels and building their own recording rooms at home, artists gained much more freedom with their music. Many more garage bands could get their music out to the public as the prices of the recording equipment got cheaper. The radio expanded to the Internet with sites such as Pandora. Regulation was decreased greatly big companies were allowed to own up to eight stations in one chain. The arrival of other music networks like ITunes and Napster also changed the effect that companies had over music. Today people can listen to things like XM Radio, Pandora or Sirius radio and only listen to a specific type of music with one button or click of the mouse. Radio stations typically play a particular genre of music, but with the deregulation came many new forms of music and ways to listen to it.

Deregulation of the Radio Industry

Before the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was put into effect, there was no competition between the broadcasting services. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 opened up a competitive field for broadcasting companies. It removed the previous laws that restricted the amount of market a company could have. However, there was still a limit to how much a company could own, because the Federal Communications Commission (also known as the FCC) did not want one company to just monopolize the broadcast market. Instead, there was a group of three or four companies that created an oligopoly. These companies included American Broadcasting Companies, Citadel, Clear Channel Communications, and Cox just to name a few. The companies in the oligopoly created many problems for the smaller radio broadcasters. The bigger companies were able cater to a larger audience while the smaller more local companies catered to a smaller audience. After awhile, most of the smaller companies could not afford to compete with the larger companies and ended up going out of business. The bigger broadcasting companies had a number of different stations in their hold and were able to control more of the radio market. This led to less diversity in the radio industry.

In what way has deregulation changed the radio and the recording industry?

When the government deregulated radio and the recording industries, many of the smaller radio stations were acquired by the larger stations forming major radio chains. With the merging of these radio stations into major conglomerations, a loss of station individuality and diversity of songs played resulted. These stations sometimes use computerized scheduling of songs choosing songs from the same library therefore there are more stations playing the same songs over and over again. Now there is less range of music for listeners to enjoy with too many songs overlapping on these consolidated radio stations. Another negative consequence from deregulation is that there is too much advertising on the airwaves which listeners are getting tired of. Deregulation’s affect on the recording industry has also resulted in the merging of smaller recording companies with larger recording corporations, ultimately eliminating the unique qualities associated with a small recording company. It is now more difficult for a new musician to break into the recording industry with a new song, therefore new artists are finding it more difficult to be discovered and be successful. Some form of government regulation may be necessary to address these problems so the radio and recording industries can once again use their individual identities to inform and entertain us.

Deregulation of Radio

Deregulation is “the removal or simplification of government rules and regulations that constrain the operation of market forces.” When radio was deregulated the ability to create large radio media corporations was found. As soon as the change was made larger radio companies began merging, and buying off other radio companies. The ability to deregulate radio came when channel scarcity disappeared. With the ability to broadcast over 13000 different frequencies scarcity was no longer a problem, allowing for the formation of radio giants.

With so many different options on radio corporations had to maintain their audience to guarantee more success when selling advertising spots within the broadcasts. With recorded music radio was able to be most cost efficient. Recorded music allowed for a radio station to broadcast whatever they felt was best, but also to hold a large amount of music to choose from. Radio has become corporation run, used as free advertising for up and coming musical artists.

Radio and recording have become household items. Radio today broadcasts music and information specific to its audience. Recording has become an industry that can be started from home. Because these technologies have become so common large radio corporations who “do it the best” have become the only profitable members of this changing society.

-Michael Bouchie-