We got a sneak preview last week on the Future of Music Coalition report on the the consolidation of commercial radio. The report came out yesterday, and honorary Blogcritic Brad Hill has penetrating commentary on his site, Digital Songstream (always worth a visit):

Study: Effects of Radio Consolidation
The Future of Music Coalition, a non-profit think tank, has released its massive study on the effects of radio consolidation on musicians and listeners. Meant to measure the success or failure of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the study ferociously concludes that deregulation of radio station ownership rules has damaged the ability of musicians to gain airplay, and likewise damaged listeners' access to programming choice. The first argument is brought home without room for doubt, but the second is undermined by the study's support survey.

This study represents a great deal of methodical and fastidious work, and the FMC should be congratulated for its integrity, thoroughness, and methodological resourcefulness. The study documents the extent of radio consolidation, as both market share and format overlap, using its formidable statistics to present a case that musicians are harmed.

No argument there. Like bricks in a wall of evidence, the FMC cements graph upon graph in a devastating portrayal of a radio oligopoly that controls and restricts programming to an astonishing degree. Not only do a mere four gigantic broadcasting consolidators control at least 70 percent of the music we hear in 98 percent of the radio markets, but there is far less distinction among the radio formats than you might believe after a casual spin along the dial. Huge overlaps in the playlists of stations presumably dedicated to different music genres exist.

The resulting, unavoidable picture is of an industry dominated by a small handful of "gatekeepers"--executive decision-makers in a few companies who decide what America hears over the airwaves. Considering that the airwaves themselves are (theoretically) owned by the citizenry, the result of deregulation in 1996 appears to be exactly contrary to the public good.

But what does the public think? This is where the study trips over its own data, and fails to persuasively make a case of damage to the listening marketplace. The study is underpinned by a survey conducted by the Behavior Research Center in May, 2002. A close read of the response breakdowns indicates that:

page 1 | 2