[1] The Future of Music Coalition reported the number of stations owned by the ten largest companies increased by roughly fifteen times between 1985 and 2005.
[6] Their aggressive acquisitions have gained them enemies as well as supporters, but their ownership of 247 of the nation's 250 largest radio markets and their domination of the Top 40 format makes them undeniably a significant player in the music industry.
After the company's concert promotion division spun off in 2005, it ditched the Clear Channel name in favor of Live Nation.
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.
He argues this "has forced musical production to succumb to the advertising, marketing, styling, and engineering techniques of increasingly uniform and narrow profit-driven criteria.
"[2] In the name of efficiency, new technology has allowed a station's technician to cut and paste news, weather and host chatter into pre-recorded programming.
[5] 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.
[2] For radio broadcasters, the more homogeneity between different services held in common ownership (or the more elements within a program schedule which can be shared between 'different' stations), the greater the opportunity to gain profits.
[5] This increase of cost-efficiency, an application of economies of scale, also results in cutting staff and centralizing programming decisions on what should be broadcast.
[11] 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.
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.
[2] FMC's study concludes that allowing unlimited national consolidation has resulted in less competition, fewer viewpoints, and a decrease in diversity in radio programming – a trend in the opposite direction of Congress's stated goals for the FCC's media policy.
Teams of market research er strategically compile playlists to be as widely appealing as possible rather than base the song choices on merit.
"[2] When economic criteria drive programming decisions, it follows 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...
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 previously required.
[1] 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 the negotiation of advertising rates.
Instead, he contends that "through intricate applications of management theory – supervising and measuring data – marketers settle priorities, make aesthetic judgments, and select musical forms."
The Federal Communications Commission seems to be sympathetic to single station owners, and its former chairman, William Kennard, has taken steps to encourage further diversity in ownership by proposing the creation of three new classes of licenses for LPFMs.
"[8] This view highlights a common theme that creativity and passion have been subverted by the financial incentives of corporatized media companies.