Last week the NAB enlisted two more hired guns to battle for their cause: Philip M. Napoli and James Miller. Both offered their "assessment" of the Sirius-XM merger, and submitted their documents to Members of Congress and their staff.
Philip M. Napoli is a director of the Donald McGannon Communication Research Center at Fordham University, and James C. Miller is the former chairman of the Federal Trade Commission and former director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Both men with distinguished careers.
The letter (PDF) from James Miller is far less of interest. It's a short piece that simply involves Miller stating that "the merger of XM and Sirius would be contrary to the public interest." But it's hardly an detailed analysis, and looks like simply the hiring of a big gun to submit a letter.
Napoli's 8-page report (PDF) on the otherhand is far more detailed. Napoli examines the Sirius-XM merger according to three definitions: the "upstream" market, the 'downstream" market, and the "audience" market. Each point can probably be argued until we're blue in the face.
Even more interesting is that Napoli had previously testified in front of a Senate Committee about Media Ownership rules, back in October of 2003.
During his testimony, Napoli acknowledged that there's not yet enough evidence to demonstrate that the relaxed ownership rules will harm localism and diversity. Still, regardless of any evidence (or lack thereof) stating otherwise, he stuck to his guns and concluded that, "For the public, the best outcome would be a policy that protects and promotes localism and diversity."
Now it's interesting that the NAB (of all groups) would hire someone who promotes the integrity of localism and diversity, while at the same time their members are pushing for more consolidation within local markets.
But hey, if I was a group that would say anything and do anything to stop a merger, I'd hire someone that may not support my own member's agendas as well.
"Now it's interesting that the NAB (of all groups) would hire someone who promotes the integrity of localism and diversity, while at the same time their members are pushing for more consolidation within local markets."
I happen to work with the NAB and while I can't speak for all my higher-ups, I don't think these are at all mutually exclusive. For one thing, contrary to the negative stereotype, local stations that are acquired do in fact retain local staffs. Second, the diversity argument is just completely wrong. The typical outcome when a company buys up multiple stations in one market is a diversification of formats -- instead of having 2 country stations competing for the same audience, one might stay country and the other might become urban contemporary or news/talk. The FCC should relax the ownership rules. It'll create more varied programming and make sure those stations stay in business.
>>>The FCC should relax the ownership rules. It'll create more varied programming and make sure those stations stay in business.
Tell you what...let the FCC approve the merger of XM & SIRIUS and relax the ownership rules. Then let the consumer decide what he or she wants to listen to. Deal?
I may be ill-informed, but it seems to me that the NAB is coming out with new, vocal hired guns every day. Where are the XM-Sirius hired guns? Does XM-Siri think they don't need to reach for outside shows of support, or are they just missing an opportunity?
I don't think it's quite so no-harm-no-foul as you do, Rich. A consolidated XM/Sirius results in ONE satellite station, with all the market power that goes with a monopoly. Loosen the FCC rules and there are still many owners, even in regional and local markets. Just because the FCC is involved in both doesn't mean they have equal weight.
P.S. Ken, I was already hired. But I don't mind the appelation!
"A consolidated XM/Sirius results in ONE satellite station, with all the market power that goes with a monopoly."
That would be great. Too bad its not a monopoly in their market. They aren't selling satellites; they are selling audio entertainment.
Aye Schimshamity, so they are selling audio equipment. This audio equipment also puts them in a position to dictate terms to the advertisers who want to be on both satellite and terrestrial radio. My concern is what happens to those local stations.
A satellite radio monopoly could undercut the national advertising market through cross-subsidization and anti-competitive behavior. It could charge higher prices to customers and then use those extra profits to undercut advertising prices and threaten local programming. XM and Sirius apart cannot do this -- but together, they pose not just stiff competition but very possibly unfair competition.