This article offers lots of bullshit maybes, but I don't see any mention of the terrible ill will Clear Channel created with its flag waving and proslytizing for the Bush regime. The article doesn't mention that the reason it's concert venues started having to change their names, often back to the original names before Clear Channel acquired them, was because of the political vitriol which had become associated with the mere mention of its name. The article doesn't point out the coincidence in the fact that the period discussed happens to coincide with the five-year love-fest Clear Channel has enjoyed with the Bush administration. The article mainly says that Clear Channel is sucking wind, and despite the lame denials, we know the real reasons! Go DU!
--
Concert Company's Stock May Not Play Well
December 21, 2005
By ETHAN SMITH, Wall Street Journal
<snip>
Live Nation is the dominant player in the glamorous, but struggling world of live concerts. As the world's largest live-entertainment promoter, the Clear Channel unit last year staged more than 10,000 concerts, 12,000 theatrical performances and 600 motor-sports events for more than 61 million people.
It owns or operates in 141 venues in the United States and Europe.
But Live Nation's value has also fallen by as much as 81 percent in the five years since Clear Channel Communications acquired its corporate predecessor, SFX Entertainment Inc., for nearly $3 billion.
The media giant, based in San Antonio, was not able to execute its vision of creating a pop-culture juggernaut by using its thousands of billboards and radio stations to cross-promote concerts.
And the concert business in recent years has been staggered by over-aggressive pricing and sky-high fees paid to artists.
<snip>
http://www.courant.com/business/hc-wsjconcert1221.artdec21,0,2310032.story?coll=hc-headlines-business