In conclusion, all radio appears to be down, but Clear
Channel is down comparatively more because it has more
assets, stations, and is a "diversified media company".


therefore the enire stock comparison is invalid as a
measure of CCs radio division performance.

Except that they have the lowest P/E ratio of the group.
A P/E ratio is an indicator of optimism about future
prospects for a company. The higher the ratio, the more
investors expect them to do well.

compare "broadcast cash flow" or some other valid yardstick to indicate a
valid cause and effect


So Clear Channel must be in some other businesses, right?
They have a near monopoly on concert/event promotions,
so that should not be a problem.

it is if you are using those numbers to allege an impact on the absence of
one radio show


The other industry Clear Channel is invested in has
been up more than the radio industry. Compare Lamar and Obie.
Both are outdoor/billboard, which is Clear Channel's
other major business and works in synergy with their event
promotion business. In fact, Lamar and Obie are both
smaller and losing money. Both are up over the last
6 months. What does that tell you?

pretty much nothing that has to do with radio

It tells me that you are a republitard.

one of the advertising fallacies: if you cant make a valid point call
someone names

And that Howard and his listeners are beating the F
out of Clear Channel.

just my opinion but stale programming and almost 100% automation are doing a
better job of driving listeners away then any amount of fan action could
achieve

to equate the removal of one show from six stations as a
financial disaster at least in this case would be insane.

I am not equating it with financial disaster. That is the
exagerated non-sequitur you created. My argument is simply
that dumping Howard had a negative impact on profitability.

probably so but improvable unless you are privy to their accounting records.

That, as a business decision, they were better off with
Howard than without.

faced with huge fines id say it was more of a no brainer. they can always
put him back on when the political climate eases up.

The stations they dropped him from are
experiencing lower ratings (smaller audiences), which leads
to both less advertising and lower ad rates (smaller profit
margins).

its normal that when a programming changes that the ratings initially drop.

Add to that a boycott of Clear Channel stations,
products, and advertisers, and you have a more wide spread
impact than just the 6 markets.

stations love boycots. they have almost zero effect other then to generate
free media attention.

"Tim Perry" wrote:

compare "broadcast cash flow" or some other valid yardstick
to indicate a valid cause and effect

Such as broadast earnings? That's the point I make next:

So Clear Channel must be in some other businesses, right?
They have a near monopoly on concert/event promotions,
so that should not be a problem.

it is if you are using those numbers to allege an impact on
the absence of one radio show

They are making money there and in the following:

The other industry Clear Channel is invested in has
been up more than the radio industry. Compare Lamar and
Obie. Both are outdoor/billboard, which is Clear Channel's
other major business and works in synergy with their event
promotion business. In fact, Lamar and Obie are both
smaller and losing money. Both are up over the last
6 months. What does that tell you?

pretty much nothing that has to do with radio

Precisely. In other words, and I will write this as
slowly as possible for the republitards out there.
Their other lines of business are successful. Those
other businesses have been up in the stock market for
companies that operate only in that line of business.
Therefore, even though they are not down as much on
the surface, they actually have to be down much more
in the radio business to adjust for the amount the
other businesses are up.

It tells me that you are a republitard.

one of the advertising fallacies: if you cant make a valid
point call someone names

Blame it on the republicans that trained me to
serve as an example of morality, integrity, and
accountability.

And that Howard and his listeners are beating the F
out of Clear Channel.

just my opinion but stale programming and almost 100%
automation are doing a better job of driving listeners away
then any amount of fan action could achieve

That has been true since 1997 or 1998.

I am not equating it with financial disaster. That is the
exagerated non-sequitur you created. My argument is
simply that dumping Howard had a negative impact on
profitability.

probably so but improvable unless you are privy to their
accounting records.

They are a public corporation. If it were earlier in the
day, I might go dig up some annual reports and look to
see if it breaks down by industry.

That, as a business decision, they were better off with
Howard than without.

faced with huge fines id say it was more of a no brainer.
they can always put him back on when the political climate
eases up.

That is the error. They are 1 of the actual sources of
the climate of censorship. The owners are personal friends
of Bush. The fine they paid was pure publicity, probably
taken directly from their advertising/PR budget.

The stations they dropped him from are
experiencing lower ratings (smaller audiences), which
leads to both less advertising and lower ad rates
(smaller profit margins).

its normal that when a programming changes that the ratings
initially drop.

Excuses, excuses. Write them on your Clear Channel job
application.

Add to that a boycott of Clear Channel stations,
products, and advertisers, and you have a more wide spread
impact than just the 6 markets.

stations love boycots. they have almost zero effect other
then to generate free media attention.

Are you even giving what you write half a thought? If that
is the case, it would have made even more sense to keep
Howard. Free media attention and no initial drops.
We are talking about a company that has consistently
censored anything anti-Bush.

"Deceitful Deceivers" wrote in message
...

That is the error. They are 1 of the actual sources of
the climate of censorship.

Censorship is done by the government. When a company in the private sector
makes decisions on what or what not to play, it's called first amendment
rights.

Censorship would be the government telling a cable news channel that they
cannot use a particular slogan.

"Paul Jensen" wrote in message
...

"Deceitful Deceivers" wrote in message
...

Censorship is done by the government. When a company in the private sector
makes decisions on what or what not to play, it's called first amendment
rights.

Censorship would be the government telling a cable news channel that they
cannot use a particular slogan.

Well, no....the issue here is whether any entity can use a deceptive slogan in order
to appear to be what they are not. Just as a timeshare company can't use the slogan
"where the real estate is free" (unless it IS, of course, but what would be the point
of that?) the FTC is being called on to refute Fox's claim that they are "Fair and
Balanced", when they are, by the consensus of professionals qualified to make such
judgements, not. Regulation is not censorship, as there are, despite what your take
on the Constitution might be, limits to "free speech". There are numerous Supreme
court cases which bear this out...of course, this one, if it gets that far, will
probably have to go that far to be determined one way or the other.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
There must always be the appearance of lawfulness....especially when the law's being
broken.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!-

That is the error. They are 1 of the actual sources of
the climate of censorship.

Censorship is done by the government. When a company in the private sector
makes decisions on what or what not to play, it's called first amendment
rights.

When the government controls a company and tells is what to do in order to get
rewarded with more station licenses or get punished with not getting those
licenses renewed, then it is censorship.

Don't be fooled into thinking that a company that was making a lot of money
with Stern would decide on their own to drop him and lose money.

The fact that Clear Channel is crying and complaining to the government now
that they are doubly screwed now that Infinity is putting Stern back in those
markets and hurting the profits of Clear Channel stations all the more, should
wake you up to what is really going on here.

Censorship would be the government telling a cable news channel that they
cannot use a particular slogan.

Or telling Clear Channel they can not have any on air talent saying anything
negative about Bush.