http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=224715929
Dick is 81 and still doin' it!
Nick Seneca
Dick is 81 and still doin' it!
Nick Seneca
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Scott Simon Interviews Dick Biondi on Weekend Edition
- Thread starter Nick Gerard
- Start date
As some one who worked both on air & in radio ad sales for all but 5 years from 1966-2012....it's my opinion Mr. Biondi nailed it in his comments.
Radio in about the last 15 years is all about business/$$$$$....and almost nothing about "show". And, some people either doubt or wonder why the radio industry has massive problems in 2013.
Radio in about the last 15 years is all about business/$$$$$....and almost nothing about "show". And, some people either doubt or wonder why the radio industry has massive problems in 2013.
Last edited:
I think it really depends on where you are. It was all about business when I started which was more than 15 years ago. I could sense that then. The show was fine if it was successful, but if it wasn't, you were gone. We all can name successful DJs who got big ratings. What about all the folks who tried out and failed along the way? There are a lot of people who never achieved Biondi's success, and a lot of them had to find other ways to pay the bills. Biondi lived in a bubble, working at great stations, playing great music, at a time when radio had a monopoly on people's attention. Now he's under more pressure because his station isn't the hit it once was.
Today, for people who work on shows, it's still all about the show. If you're a morning show producer or a host, you don't have to sell time. You don't have to make client calls. You don't have to do conference calls with the mucky mucks. So it's still pretty much unchanged. The pressure remains to deliver ratings, which is the same as it ever was.
Last edited:
Ratings don't mean a thing. I've seen way too many people get let go despite market-leading ratings. Ask the guys who used to do mid-days all over the nation. It's all over the NAB show - radio simply isn't as entertaining as it used to be. The "companionship" aspect of radio is being neglected, and a lot of people speaking at the NAB see erosion in radio's programming. The fact is that there are fewer sales people, and fewer people in programming. It's a wonder that there's any growth in revenue considering the lack of investment in the product.
Legends get to be an exception to the rule. Even Cumulus recognizes his value in a major market. The fact that there are market-leading stations in major markets running syndication in any daypart is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Billboard's Rich Appel recently interviewed John Garabedian, 73-year-old station owner and host of Open House Party, about when he knew he wanted to get into ownership...
"While working at a top 40 when I was 21 or 22, I thought to myself, “This isn’t the kind of radio I believe in; these people don’t put a lot of emphasis on entertainment. When I’m 30, do I want to be reading liner cards, doing radio I hate?”
Do the math...Garabedian's talking about FIFTY years ago.
A is right. And the point I belabor here is that having worked in the business prior to dereg, it wasn't all sunshine, lollipops and roses prior to 1996.
Anyone here ever work for Entercom? Some people are treated very well in that company but my experience has been, it's the exception.
I was with Osborn at WWVA in Wheeling WV 23 years ago when the business bit us in the hiney. Due to poor business decisions on the part of people further up the food chain, we and sister 93Q/Syracuse were put on austerity measures since we were the ONLY properties in the company not hemorrhaging money and needed to prop everyone else up.
That's when we started running 2:00 spots for Gold Bond powder in AM drive...featuring elderly ladies sharing the details of their skin rashes in sickening detail.
Yet during this period there were places making GREAT radio, just like there were in 1962...or 1982...or even today.
Yes things have changed and NOT for the better. But please don't delude yourself into thinking it's all because Clear Channel and Cumulus are here. I contend if they weren't, there would be a hundred smaller operators in their place - doing their own variation of the same thing. And we'd be in the same place today.
Problem for who? If they're "market-leading," it isn't a problem for the audience or station.
You're apparently not paying attention to what audiences or even ownership at the NAB had to say. Or to the constant slippage in TSL. People go elsewhere because they're not hearing what they want - companionship. That's always been the key for radio. Music has always been available from other sources. Music discover is as strong as ever. The companionship aspect of radio is what's been sacrificed, and both listeners and advertisers have noticed.
As you well know, TSL began to slip in the 80s. It had nothing to do with "companionship." Today, people can find REAL companionship, and even marriage, through more personal, interactive media. In the meantime, radio usage has held constant, even after ten years of competition from satellite and streaming radio. But if people want "companionship" from radio, there are thousands of DJs there to provide it. They may not be local, but that's only an issue if the listener actually wants to have an affair with the DJ.
Once again, read what was said at the RAB/NAB meetings recently, and any number of studies that say exactly the opposite of your opinion. You have an opinion, but no facts to back it up. If you do, link to 'em.
Do I really have to do all your reading for you, and break it down into simple words?
Start here:
http://kassof.com/2013/good-news-and-bad-news/
Check out Tom Taylor's newsletters and articles about the NAB/RAB. There are several:
http://us6.campaign-archive1.com/home/?u=78b390ff9f5b002e3f050238c&id=5fb0670473
There are plenty of other sources. Perhaps if you shelve your personal biases for a few minutes, do some reading, and try to understand what's being said, you'll catch up with the rest of the industry. I don't have time to educate you on every article published about the NAB/RAB. You're a "Big" boy. Educate yourself.
Start here:
http://kassof.com/2013/good-news-and-bad-news/
Check out Tom Taylor's newsletters and articles about the NAB/RAB. There are several:
http://us6.campaign-archive1.com/home/?u=78b390ff9f5b002e3f050238c&id=5fb0670473
There are plenty of other sources. Perhaps if you shelve your personal biases for a few minutes, do some reading, and try to understand what's being said, you'll catch up with the rest of the industry. I don't have time to educate you on every article published about the NAB/RAB. You're a "Big" boy. Educate yourself.
The Kassof article is from a consultant, not an owner. And he didn't ask his respondents to explain WHY they think radio isn't as good as it used to be. Ask any 25 year old male about radio, and his complaints are mainly about the music. Nothing in Kassof talks about hiring more local staff, companionship, or TSL.
You clearly said that "owners at the NAB show" were talking about the loss of companionship, and how it affected TSL. The only person I see talking about the loss of companionship is you. That was YOUR personal bias. You must be very lonely.
You clearly said that "owners at the NAB show" were talking about the loss of companionship, and how it affected TSL. The only person I see talking about the loss of companionship is you. That was YOUR personal bias. You must be very lonely.
Last edited:
I linked to a lot of articles. You obviously didn't read them. I'm not going to dig through them for quotes by owners because I simply don't have the time or desire. You have NO quotes backing your contention. And I have no interest in YOUR personal bias against air talent, which you've expressed repeatedly. You spend an awful lot more time on here than I do, which indicates to me that YOU must be very lonely - or are getting paid for being a troll.
I've read all the Radio Show coverage, and I spoke with a lot of people who were there. The Kassof study is a bad one, starting with the question he asked, which was biased from the start. You don't conduct a serious research study by telling people radio is bad, and then ask them to agree or disagree. And you don't do a serious research study without asking them for specifics. This is not a serious research study.
If you don't have the "time or desire" to prove your point, then you obviously lack the passion of your convictions. If you're concerned that I'm a troll, then don't respond to my posts.
You're the one with no real local connection who inserted himself into the Buffalo/Rochester board. Some of us apparently have jobs. Others, as I say, either don't, or are paid to post here.
Since you like this Kassof study, today he released more results of his survey...this time asking 989 online respondents their primary motivation to listen to the radio. The results were published today in All Access:
At the top, 49% find listening "to get in a better mood" very important, and 46% find listening "to relax and unwind" very important. Surprisingly, listening "to feel more like part of your community" was among the lowest motivations, with just 17% very interested.
At the top, 49% find listening "to get in a better mood" very important, and 46% find listening "to relax and unwind" very important. Surprisingly, listening "to feel more like part of your community" was among the lowest motivations, with just 17% very interested.
I have to agree, totally, with Big A...
(I suppose that makes me a Troll, too)
... that the survey question introduced an element of bias.
1. The vagueness of the time frame "...as it used to be" will cause older demos to think of radio many decades ago, while younger ones will think of periods of months or, at most, a few years.
2. The multiple choice here is not good research technique. This kind of question is best put on a range scale, with 5 being "it's no different than the past", 0 being "it's a lot worse than it was in the past" and 10 being "much better than ever".
3. The question itself should be "now, thinking about radio today and radio as you remember it when you were 21 (or some other fixed point of reference), how does what you hear today compare with what you heard back then?"
As Big A indicated, also, the real issues in listener satisfaction, particularly in younger demos, are music selection and blend.
I recently had a chance to ask a significant group of 18-49's in a Top 10 metro what their "community" is by asking them to rank their idea of "community" against a number of possibilities.
Options that were given were 1. My neighborhood, 2) my city or town, 3) my workplace or school 4) my family, 5) my friends and 6) my Facebook, Tumblr, FourSqure friends. These were to be ranked, so they had to put 1 to 6 next to the choices. Hint as to results: 1 and 2 were next to last and last, while #6 was at the top.
Yesterday's definition of "local" and "community" have changed.
Another definition that changed, redefined by TV viewership: "'Live'" is anything I don't play back off my DVR"
- Status