Change That Dial: Improved Data Collection and Analysis Needed for Media Policy-making
By Ann Chaitovitz, Executive Director, Future of Music Coalition
Data collection and analysis is essential to ensuring localism, competition and diversity on the public airwaves.
More than a century after its invention, radio remains an extremely valuable public resource. Yet commercial radio has often failed to live up to its potential. Flawed media policies based on poor data and analysis bear a good deal of the blame. But recent changes in the policymaking landscape offer an opportunity to improve conditions in radio — for the benefit of listeners, artists, communities and the stations themselves.
Much of what makes terrestrial broadcasting unique is its connection to local communities — radio is, by nature, a geographically based medium. Unfortunately, localism is all but absent among today’s corporate-owned stations, and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) — charged with regulating radio “in the public interest” — has thus far not conducted a proper analysis of localism and diversity on the dial.
A little history is in order to better understand the current situation. In 1996, Congress eliminated the national cap that limited the number of stations any company could own, and raised the local ownership cap to eight in the largest markets. Almost overnight, the radio landscape was transformed, as wave after wave of consolidation fundamentally altered the nature of the commercial broadcasting industry.
In 2001 and 2002, these issues became increasingly public as artists, activists and policymakers spoke out about the devastating impact of ownership consolidation. Media reform, civil rights and public interest groups were eager to see if the FCC would address consolidation’s negative impact on its stated goals of localism, competition and diversity.
As the regulatory agency responsible for the public airwaves, the FCC should collect and analyze playlist information to determine whether stations are honoring their license obligations. The lack of data collection makes valid policy analysis virtually impossible. The Commission has been historically reticent to do this work, which places the burden on small non-profits to purchase expensive data from private companies and devote considerable time toward its interpretation.
In late 2002, the FCC issued a flawed report that concluded that radio consolidation had actually led to greater diversity in commercial radio. The Commission’s report improperly concluded that more program diversity had resulted from ownership consolidation because it had meant an increase in radio formats in most local markets.
That same year, however, Future of Music Coalition released a report that went much deeper, and came up with very different conclusions. By purchasing — at considerable expense — access to broadcasting industry data and archived copies of charts published in Radio and Records, FMC conducted a thorough analysis of changes in both radio station ownership and playlist composition. (It should be noted that data access and analysis is not always possible, as the biggest provider is owned and controlled by a broadcaster.)
FMC’s study underscored that diversity can’t be measured solely by the number of formats on the dial; proper examination would mean looking at what’s actually played on those formats. Through playlist analysis, FMC documented how song selections in many formats overlapped in clusters. In the most extreme cases, two formats that the FCC would have measured as discrete formats — Urban and CHR/Rhythmic — shared up to 76 percent of the same songs.
Instead of diversity of content, the study found that similar selections were merely relabeled to reach interconnected demographic groups. Imagine being in a grocery store that offered lots and lots of different kinds of jars . . . only inside the jars was the same kind of food. Commercial broadcasters were offering the public a similar set of non-choices.
More recently, the FCC looked into payola (or pay-to-play) practices implicating major labels and the large station owner groups. Following a settlement with the FCC, all parties agreed to a “consent decree,” in which the broadcasters agreed to play more local and independent music. In the absence of rigorous FCC oversight and data analysis, Future of Music Coalition again undertook a costly analysis of playlists to determine if the agreements were being honored. Full results are forthcoming, but a report based on interviews with independent label representatives has already been published.
While the collection and analysis of proprietary data can be time-consuming and costly, it’s become clear that it is often the best way to measure the effects of policy decisions on a market or a behavior. In fact, it’s an essential component of the high-quality social research that measures the effects of policy changes in other sectors. However, proprietary data is not only expensive, but some owners of the data are reticent — if not totally opposed — to having it used in any way beyond snapshots of the commercial field.
The fact that an independent regulatory body cannot conduct the research necessary to test the outcomes of a public policy is troubling. FMC is in discussions with specific Commissioners regarding this fundamental problem, and plans on filing a formal report at the Commission outlining the problems with proprietary data sets and urging the FCC to take action to measure their own outcomes — especially those related to the payola consent decrees.
The FCC and the public must work together. By making data collection and analysis a top priority, the FCC will be able to understand the sectors it oversees and measure the impact of key policies. Data sets should also be made available to the public so that advocates can analyze industry trends and, where necessary, challenge the FCC’s own findings. A shift in mindset about how to best regulate the public airwaves has been a long time coming — and there are legitimate reasons to be hopeful.
There are a number of public interest groups who deserve credit for their work in ensuring proper oversight of our media — from the Consumer Federation of America and Media Alliance, to Prometheus Radio Project, Free Press and more. Yet the success of such endeavors also relies on the proper collection and analysis of data.
With the recent changes in the policymaking landscape, there is hope among advocates that steps will be taken to advance the FCC’s stated goals of localism, competition and diversity on the public airwaves. But to truly make progress in this area requires the commitment of not only those tasked with regulating radio, but also the broadcasters. Certainly the massive devaluation of commercial radio properties indicates that “business as usual” is not an option.
The responsible regulatory agency should routinely collect and analyze data — either by requiring broadcasters to submit the information as a condition of their licenses, or by employing commercial data providers. Whatever the issue — from cable rates to broadband penetration to payola in commercial radio — the FCC has a fundamental responsibility to pursue and absorb readily available data in order to make informed policy decisions. This is something the entire public interest community can and should advocate for, as it is crucial to the health of our country’s media system.
[Published 2009-03-10]
