For as long as there has been talk of loosening ownership rules in radio, there has been a divide between those who own and those who work.
On one side, executives and ownership groups believe rescinding ownership limits is the industry’s path to survival. On the other, on-air talents and producers see the move as one that all but guarantees fewer jobs. Both sides have history on their side, but their goals couldn’t be further apart.
Those opportunities — or wounds, depending on your perspective — were opened this week as the FCC shared it would begin its 2022 quadrennial review of ownership limits, which was championed by the NAB, Beasley Media Group, Cumulus Media, and Connoisseur Media, among others.
History is a cruel teacher in this conversation. The 1996 Telecommunications Act is the most glaring example. Radio ownership caps were relaxed, companies scooped up stations at a rapid pace (and inflated prices), and consolidation became the business model.
What followed? A steep decline in employees. Multiple voices on air turned into a single voice across clusters. Newsrooms shrank. Production staffs were cut in half. Sales staffs have even become shells of what they used to be in their heyday.
The message was clear: deregulation meant fewer opportunities for those who worked inside studios, even as executives touted “efficiency” and “synergy.”
That history shapes how radio talents view deregulation today. If you’re a morning host, traffic reporter, or board op, there’s nothing exciting about hearing your company may soon own more stations in your market, or anywhere else, for that matter, because you know what comes next: automation, out-of-market voice-tracking, shared programming. It doesn’t take long before your role is eliminated, or, if you’re one of the lucky ones, your workload doubles for the same pay.
So, naturally, the overwhelming majority of employees are against loosening ownership caps. Their opposition isn’t ideological. It’s survival.
Meanwhile, ownership groups and their executives have a very different outlook. In a world where Apple, Spotify, and YouTube dominate digital audio, executives believe consolidation offers the only chance to compete.
Their logic is simple: larger clusters mean bigger scale, which means more ad dollars. If you’re fighting for national buys, a company with 20 stations in one market and a digital network spanning dozens of others is more attractive to advertisers than a company capped by ownership rules written decades ago. To the C-Suite, rescinding ownership limits isn’t about trimming headcount. It’s about survival in a digital-first economy.
Both perspectives make sense within their own context. Employees see consolidation as a threat to their careers. Owners see it as a lifeline for their companies. And while both sides may be right, neither side is willing to acknowledge the other’s point of view. For employees, the argument is existential. For owners, the argument is financial.
The reality is that bridging this gap feels almost impossible. Radio ownership groups aren’t going to stop advocating for fewer restrictions. They see the FCC as an outdated referee still playing by 1980s rules. And employees aren’t going to suddenly cheer the idea of consolidation. They’ve seen too many of their beloved colleagues let go to believe otherwise.
So where does that leave the industry? Pretending this tension doesn’t exist helps no one. These conversations are happening daily — whether in the studio, at the water cooler, or in boardrooms and corner offices. Employees worry about pink slips, while executives dream of bigger clusters and national ad packages. The disconnect is obvious. Conversely, employees dream about having the attention and bank account of Howard Stern, while executives worry about how they can inflate the stock price and increase revenue.
Could there be a middle ground? Maybe. Some have suggested ownership groups invest more heavily in local content and personalities or digital innovation if deregulation is expanded. That might help ease employee fears. But promises are hard to believe when the history of deregulation in radio is littered with layoffs.
At the same time, talent needs to recognize that owners aren’t pushing for deregulation just because they’re bored and looking for new challenges. Competing against Big Tech is a fight radio can’t win without scale. Spotify isn’t worried about the FCC’s ownership limits. Neither is Apple. And YouTube isn’t scaling back its ad inventory because of rules written for terrestrial radio. Owners view consolidation as the only way to play in that same league.
There may not be a perfect bridge between these two worlds. And maybe that’s the uncomfortable truth the industry has to live with. But ignoring the conversation doesn’t help. For radio to have a future, both the studio and the corner office need to at least understand where the other is coming from — even if they never agree.
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. To stay updated, sign up for our newsletters and get the latest information delivered straight to your inbox.
