IN 2006, your favourite right on, anti-corporate, anti-whatever-you've-got-going band will have a new whipping boy to bang on about. Live music behemoth Clear Channel has decided that it's time for a new name, and the usual bile can now be directed at an entity called Live Nation.

Clear Channel initiated the change during the quiet December lull when nothing seems to happen and news- paper men and women spend their time looking back and looking forward. When Clear Channel thought that people were paying more attention to stuffing themselves with turkey and ham sandwiches, it informed the stock exchange that it was creating a new corporation to look after the live entertainment business.

It would have been a common-or-garden story

of interest solely to the financial community (or taxation nerds, given the whopping tax bill Clear Channel may save with the move) were it not for two small facts.

First, the Clear Channel guy who sorts out the corporation's web stuff forget to check if anyone else was using the Live Nation name online. Enter livenation.net, a hardcore pornography site, and a spate of news stories which Clear Channel/ Live Nation would prefer not to have seen before it purchased the website name. We assume that Clear Channel's ex-Mr Web is enjoying his new job selling cold beverages at one of the company's venues.

Yet, aside from the guffaws which greeted this gaffe, Live Nation's arrival marks another attempt by the world's largest live entertainment group to grab some feel-good factor. It seems that Clear Channel,

too, wants to feel the love and has realised there's very little coming in their direction. The King Kong of entertainment conglomerates may pull in some $3 billion a year in revenue from some 30,000 events, yet it also wants integrity and respect.

But Clear Channel attracts bad press like a mangy dog attracts fleas. Since founder Lowry Mays bought a San Antonio radio station in 1972 for $125,000, Clear Channel has been on the radar of entertainment business professionals, consumer groups and US politicians for its aggressive, monopolistic business practices. In many quarters, Clear Channel bashing is as popular as Bush-baiting.

Last year Clear Channel took a few steps to counter all that bad karma. Instead of one united Clear Channel brand, it reinstated some of the local promotion companies it had taken over in various US cities. How- ever, few people were fooled by the sight of all these cantering Trojan horses. After all, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be Clear Channel dressing down and trying to get with the kids.

But it's not just the name which is bad news. Industry analysts calculate that the value of Clear Channel's live entertainment business has fallen by as much as 81 per cent since it purchased SFX Entertainments for $3 billion in 2002. Blame the staggering drop on falling attendances, unrealistic artist fees and lots of crap music.

Live Nation boss Michael Rapino knows he has his work cut out. He told the Wall Street Journal that the company plans to cut staff by 10 per cent, streamline overheads and examine new ways to generate money from concerts, such as selling live recordings.

Rapino could perhaps also ditch the policy of shelling out massive cash guarantees to artists to ensure they don't go to rival promoters, but that's something the share- holders can raise with him. Given that initial dealings saw Live Nation's share value fall by six per cent, lets hope there are enough share- holders around to enjoy Rapino's hospitality at the first AGM.

A new name and new branding are just cosmetic changes which fool nobody. If a punter wants to see an act, he or she will buy a ticket regardless of who owns the venue or what name is embedded in the small print.

But in 2006, Clear Channel/ Live Nation may find that prospective punters baulk at the price and go somewhere else - bar livenation.com - for their live music kicks.