WBEN dropd FM Simulcast

[SirRoxalot]

Ladies and gentlemen, in case you didn't know what radio consultants have been telling corporate people about the industry, you've just had an education....

Anybody want to encourage young people to get into the radio/audio entertainment industry? This is the corporate mindset on display.

 

[TheBigA]

You can bury your head in the sand if you wish. It won't change the reality. Don't blame the weatherman when you get two feet of snow. And from what I can see, there is no shortage of young people fighting and clamoring to get into the radio industry. Schools are overflowing. I myself have several relatives who are pursuing the business. And I tell them the same things I say here. It ain't the old days any more. And it's no better in the auto, steel, tire, or other traditional businesses. Take a look around Buffalo at all the industry that used to be there as recently as 50 years ago. What happened? Take a drive to Rochester and visit Kodak. That's what happens when you don't adapt.

 

[davideduardo]

Ladies and gentlemen, in case you didn't know what radio consultants have
been telling corporate people about the industry, you've just had an education....

Here is a quote from Eric Rhoad's eMail today about a conference he is organizing...

"Radio's hot topic at the moment is the automotive audio system and the connected car. We raised this issue in June at our Convergence conference, and today it's radio's primary topic of discussion. The reality is that we think the car companies would be foolish to eliminate AM and FM radio because consumers would rebel. But perception and reality are different, and I can tell you that the perception among many in the tech world is that there is no reason radio cannot be received via the Internet -- so there is no reason to have an AM/FM receiver in the car."

If you don't see that the whole distribution channel for "radio" has been disrupted and that yesterday's style of radio is no longer desirable, you probably qualify as a true Luddite.

Anybody want to encourage young people to get into the radio/audio entertainment industry? This is the corporate mindset on display.

Into the early 30's, a bunch of places like REI and Elkins did a great business training "engineers" with enough test answers so they could pass the FCC 1st Class license exam. Then they did away with the First Ticket requirement, and thousands who owed thier jobs to having that piece of paper were out of work.

Things change. Radio is a great place for people who train for content management and social media integration. It's not so good a place for people who know how to slip cue.

 

[stevensonair]

I'm trying to figure out how all of this smart dash technology helps people who live in the numerous coverage gaps of data services at bitrates that support streaming. And how it would become financially advantageous to wireless companies to go thru the expense of building out those areas for so few customers. Those of us who live in urbanized areas find this much simpler than the type of person in North Dakota who can depend on KFYR for the bulk of a very long drive through rural territory.

 

[davideduardo]

I'm trying to figure out how all of this smart dash technology helps people who live in the numerous coverage gaps of data services at bitrates that support streaming. And how it would become financially advantageous to wireless companies to go thru the expense of building out those areas for so few customers. Those of us who live in urbanized areas find this much simpler than the type of person in North Dakota who can depend on KFYR for the bulk of a very long drive through rural territory.

I drive some very unpoptulated areas between La Quinta and Phoenix, Phoenix and Prescott and Prescott to Kingman and Santa Fe and Brawley. Nowhere does the connectivity fail me... in fact, the only dropouts I get are a couple of places within 10 to 15 miles of downtown LA!

 

[TheBigA]

Things change. Radio is a great place for people who train for content management and social media integration. It's not so good a place for people who know how to slip cue.

Let me add that I loved radio in the old days. I had a lot of fun, worked with a lot of great people, made some incredible memories, and I still keep in touch with all the people who were there when I started. But I knew then it wasn't going to last, and I was right.

 

[SirRoxalot]

And yet, radio is still a multi-billion dollar industry that has continued to grow since the 2008 recession. Digital accounts for about 5% of the revenue. Growth may have been faster if major corporations had concentrated on their CORE BUSINESS instead of sacrificing investment in content for investment in digital. Faster growth would have yielded more revenue, which means that the same expenditures could have been made for digital while the industry as a whole did better.

Nobody's burying their head in the sand. The key is CONTENT, not the delivery system. Content is what's being cut nationwide. Air talent is being lost. Production talent is being lost. Sales talent is being lost. The numbers of people in the industry continues to drop. The change in the quality of on-air programming is noticeable to listeners, and they've registered discontent in multiple studies. So, just who's burying their head in the sand?

Content, gentlemen. That's the key. And that requires people. WBEN didn't drop the FM simulcast (to bring us back on topic) because of the medium. WBEN dropped the FM simulcast because the content simply didn't appeal to the audience they were seeking. It wasn't the signal. It was the right-wing rhetoric that didn't appeal to a wider audience. You can see that on this very forum.

BTW, the kids in Communication classes ain't looking for radio as a medium. They're all about video. Audio is an annoying afterthought.

 

[Element9]

The varied comments here raise the question of the viability of AM radio, particularly those AM stand-alones operating on a show string, maybe with a morning guy who does local news and swap shop who flips the switch to some B or C grade talk network at 9 or 10 a.m. The value of these operations must be declining each year. When the digital dashboard becomes SOP, it seems to me listeners won't be moving to satellite or streaming, they'll be using their USB ports. When this happens, will these stand alone graveyard AMs not lucky enough to afford an FM translator, have any value at all? Bottom line, who's going to buy a stand-alone kilowatt AM on 1450 in the shadow of a larger medium or major market.

 

[TheBigA]

The key is CONTENT, not the delivery system. Content is what's being cut nationwide.

I really hate the word "content," because it's one of those generic words that doesn't mean anything. People don't listen to content. They listen to what they like. Two very different things. People who just throw "content" on the air are destined to fail. Generic content only succeeds in a place where people have no choice. Today they have choices between millions of different kinds of content. The job for us is to follow what works and what doesn't. Understand the audience, their behavior, and how to get and keep more of them. Sometimes, that means shutting up and playing the music. Sometimes that means teasing them on air, and moving them online for more detail. It's a very complicated thing. Yes it takes people to do it, but today there's no need to duplicate people doing the same thing over and over. Instead, do something once, put it on multiple platforms so it can be experienced over and over again. What you want is to get people who bring different things from different places and SHARE them along a common platform. Then leave it to the audience to decide which path they take. That's why traditional staffing makes no sense. You end up with lots of people all doing the same thing. Go to a press conference. See how many people are there covering the same story, and see if their stories are any different. Probably not. They all have the same quotes, with the same basic thrust. Wasteful use of people, especially when it's reporting on a story less than 5% of the audience care about.

So no, the key is NOT just content, but rather lots and lots of very specific content, with visuals, and the ability for the audience to participate in some way. You do it on multiple platforms, all of which you own and sell advertising. It's not traditional radio with DJs sitting in studios seguing songs together manually. None of that matters to anyone. And I disagree that content is being cut. Radio stations are creating more content than ever before, and its available in more places. That's what you want.

 

[davideduardo]

And yet, radio is still a multi-billion dollar industry that has continued to grow since the 2008 recession.

At the height of the recession, radio had lost nearly 40% of its revenue. In the more recent years, the loss has been cut to between 25% and 30%, depending on the market.

Take Buffalo: 1998 radio revenues of $52 million and 2013 projected revenue of $51 million, after a mid-2000's peak of $68 million. That's no net growth over a 15-year period

Using a somewhat simplified inflation metric foud at http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ the value of the $52 million in revenue from 1998 today is $75 million. So in all reality, Buffalo radio has lost a third of its real revenue, and is off more than 40% in real dollars since its peak revenue years.

The story is the same all across the nation. While there are individual stations that are up and many that are down even more, that has to do with local competition and not the overall status and economy of radio.

Radio is, overall, down a straight 30% from pre-recession 2005. Adjusted for a cumulative rate of inflation of 20% from 2005 to today, that's really off by more than 40% in real dollars. That is vastly above the 2005 EBITDA cash flow as a percent of billing levels, so it is no surprise that stations and station owners have cut staff in all areas.

accounts for about 5% of the revenue. Growth may have been faster if major corporations had concentrated on their CORE BUSINESS instead of sacrificing investment in content for investment in digital.

You have it backwards. The problem is that radio did not see the tsunami, and did not act proactively when it could be seen that digital music and media delivery was being adopted massively by the public. Digital advertising now exceeds radio advertising in dollar volume, and is growing.

Faster growth would have yielded more revenue, which means that the same expenditures could have been made for digital while the industry as a whole did better.

There has been no growth. There has been a weak recovery of a small portion of the loss, and even then if inflation is factored in, there has been a net loss.

Nobody's burying their head in the sand. The key is CONTENT, not the delivery system.

When the PUR for radio is well below 10% now, while new media is registering double digit gains, the issue is entirely the delivery system.

Content is what's being cut nationwide. Air talent is being lost. Production talent is being lost. Sales talent is being lost.

Sales is not content.

However, and agreeing with BigA on his post on content, you are defining content by old-fashion metrics. Content in radio is audio that people want to hear. If more people want to hear all music "without those annoying DJs" then pure music is content. Mixes are content. Air talent is not content, and production people are not content... they are just parts of the traditional model of content production... much of which is invalid today.

The numbers of people in the industry continues to drop. The change in the quality of on-air programming is noticeable to listeners, and they've registered discontent in multiple studies. So, just who's burying their head in the sand?

Most "content" is universal. Radio, due to technology issues, could not use content effectively in multiple markets or easily prerecord shows in the past. Today we can, so having a person in the studio waiting 4 minutes for the song to end is not needed and is inefficient.

Content, gentlemen. That's the key. And that requires people. WBEN didn't drop the FM simulcast (to bring us back on topic) because of the medium. WBEN dropped the FM simulcast because the content simply didn't appeal to the audience they were seeking. It wasn't the signal. It was the right-wing rhetoric that didn't appeal to a wider audience. You can see that on this very forum.

Many good "right wing" stations such as KSL have added FM with excellent results. WBEN's problem may have been aging demos, but the real issue is that the signal of the chosen FM is totally inadequate for today's radio and today's broader alternatives to hearing a bad signal.

BTW, the kids in Communication classes ain't looking for radio as a medium. They're all about video. Audio is an annoying afterthought.

No, that is not so. Video is a component of new media. Today's communications students are not looking for steel in the sky, whether it is video or audio. They are looking for integrated audio and video and graphical media as is possible with new media.

 

[TheBigA]

BTW, the kids in Communication classes ain't looking for radio as a medium. They're all about video. Audio is an annoying afterthought.

That's always been true. I got my first job doing what you'd call "radio" at age 17 while still in high school. I was at a top rated station in a market twice as big as Buffalo. Most of my co-workers didn't go to college. They were mainly in their 40s, and were doing the same job I was. That wasn't very encouraging for a kid. I tell college students to aim higher. They don't need college to learn how to do radio. They need college to learn how to make money at it. And that involves more than being on air.

 

[davideduardo]

That's always been true. I got my first job doing what you'd call "radio" at age 17 while still in high school. I was at a top rated station in a market twice as big as Buffalo. Most of my co-workers didn't go to college. They were mainly in their 40s, and were doing the same job I was. That wasn't very encouraging for a kid. I tell college students to aim higher. They don't need college to learn how to do radio. They need college to learn how to make money at it. And that involves more than being on air.

There is an interesting sidebar to this which is the value of university level communications courses.

The owner of a group I managed or programmed for two decades once said to me, "I don't interview college communications graduates. They come in truly believing they know more than I do yet they have never had to make a profit in their lives".

Personally, I was sidetracked by ownership before I got to college and I did not go back to school for about a decade. I looked at the communications curriculum and decided against it. I took thinks like business law, computing, accounting, statistics, calculus, sociology, psychology, art, music, marketing and advertising because I saw in all of them the building blocks of good radio. It was stuff I could apply and use. Of course, I could not earn a degree in anything, but I acquired skills I have used since then.

I took one broadcast course, a senior level broadcast management option. I got a weak grade on a term paper about a turn-around opportunity. A year later, recruited to manage a combo in a major market, I employed that same term paper to take a losing station to #1 in 18-49 women and #2 12+ in 6 months. So much for broadcast courses outside the real world.

So the question is not what students are interested in insofar as specific broadcast and new media skills but whether they gain a broad enough perspective to make those skills into a career.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Hey, I'm not the one who said that radio was a great career move at this point.

And from what I can see, there is no shortage of young people fighting and clamoring to get into the radio industry. Schools are overflowing. I myself have several relatives who are pursuing the business.

BigA, you hate the word "content". Then you go on to redefine "content" as "generic".

People who just throw "content" on the air are destined to fail. Generic content only succeeds in a place where people have no choice.

You're absolutely right. GENERIC content - i.e. VT & syndication - only succeeds in a place where people have no choice. It gets beaten handily in Buffalo by stations that provide non-generic content. Yet you hate the talent that provides that content. Somewhere there's a disconnect there.

David is convinced that music-intensive formats are the answer, when they are the most vulnerable formats to other media - particularly interactive media like the Internet. Does it make ANY sense to try to compete with interactive content? Of course not. Does it make sense to prove easily accessed, curated content targeted at particular audience demographics that's of such value that listeners are willing to sit through commercial sets in order to get more of that content? That's pretty much the basis of the business, no matter what the delivery system is.

I derived my revenue numbers from the RAB:

http://www.rab.com/public/pr/rev-pr.cfm?section=adv

Radio got hurt by the recession, but it's a LOT healthier than newspapers or the recording industry. It's a lot healthier than a lot of other industries that got killed in the recession - and it didn't get a bail-out. "Double-digit gains" are a lot easier for "digital" to achieve when you're going from .1% to .2%, or 1% to 2%. And, are you talking digital audio? Digital streaming? Digital audio and video? You're not comparing apples to apples.

PUR numbers are somewhat suspect because the methodology has changed in many markets. PPM samples differently (and many people say incorrectly due to small sample sizes and flawed methodology) than diaries. Neither is foolproof, but they're also not necessarily comparable. Arbitron says that about 92% of the population still samples radio weekly. If they're not staying to listen, you might want to rethink current programming trends.

WNY is not a representative market because we have lost significant population. Radio here has also been decimated by consolidators, which once again points to the fact that diminution of resources has accelerated the decline in revenue. There have been FAR too many instances where small savings decreed by corporate led to much larger reductions in revenue. And, anyone who thinks that sales and production aren't part of the on-air product, you really don't know much about programming. That's about as silly as thinking that a guy in the studio is just waiting 4 minutes for a song to end. If you're just asking talent to read liner cards and babysit automation, YOU'RE the problem, not the talent. You're wasting your opportunity to provide curated content worth listening to.

 

[davideduardo]

David is convinced that music-intensive formats are the answer, when they are the most vulnerable formats to other media - particularly interactive media like the Internet.

I said no such thing. I said that in music intensive formats, listeners can't tell the difference between voice tracked and live execution of the format.

Does it make ANY sense to try to compete with interactive content?

What is "interactive content"?

The most interactive content I know is provided by the custom channels on Pandora, not terrestrial radio.

Of course not. Does it make sense to prove easily accessed, curated content targeted at particular audience demographics that's of such value that listeners are willing to sit through commercial sets in order to get more of that content?

Among today's consumers, content of such value is made up by skillfully programmed music flow, mixes and such. It's a curated music library, played in the best order and patterns possible, which a playlist on a smartphone or iPod can't do.

I derived my revenue numbers from the RAB:

And in real, inflation adjusted dollars, radio is off by 30% since the recession started. It was about $21 billion in 2006, and is an (optimistic) $16 billion now. That's like around $13 billion in 2006 dollars. Add in the adjusted for inflation data back to year 1998 (pre-DotBomb) and radio is off 40% overall.

Radio got hurt by the recession, but it's a LOT healthier than newspapers or the recording industry.

Gee, that makes me feel good all over. And you forgot to say, "it is a lot healthier than the cassette manufacturing business" as well.

PUR numbers are somewhat suspect because the methodology has changed in many markets. PPM samples differently (and many people say incorrectly due to small sample sizes and flawed methodology) than diaries.

The difference is in the fact that PPM uses a panel and is passively monitored. Other than that, both PPM and the diary were a random probability sample which was weighted and projected into the universe. No difference.

However, the diary measures cume, TSL and memory. People only write what they remember. The PPM measures only cume and TSL.

Neither is foolproof, but they're also not necessarily comparable. Arbitron says that about 92% of the population still samples radio weekly. If they're not staying to listen, you might want to rethink current programming trends.

The transition from diary to PPM showed that electronically measured listening was actually 40% lower than the diary showed, using in many cases the same month in the same market as an example. The difference was all in memory and rounding. Real listening had frequent breaks and interruptions which the diary does not capture.

As to continued declines in PUR, there is a commensurate increase in listening to streams like Pandora, iHeat and actual station streams and sidechannels. People are showing us that they don't want to listen to AM and FM, even if they like our station.

WNY is not a representative market because we have lost significant population. Radio here has also been decimated by consolidators, which once again points to the fact that diminution of resources has accelerated the decline in revenue.

Actually... and this surprises me since you claim local knowledge... Buffalo has suffered a slighter decline than almost any other Top 100 market. In fact, the market is so robust that while the population rank is 56th, the market is 44th in billings.

 

[TheBigA]

You're absolutely right. GENERIC content - i.e. VT & syndication - only succeeds in a place where people have no choice.

The way you twist, you'd be a great pretzel maker.

Look...you think what I'm saying is crap. Fine. It's working for me, and I'm not the one complaining about the state of radio, ownership, or anything else. I'm not saying it's perfect, but I found a way to make it work. I'm very happy. No complaints here. You don't have to agree with me. You agreeing doesn't make me money. So keep riding your horse.

 

[SirRoxalot]

First, thank you David for making my point. Radio does provide easily accessed, curated content, something that Pandora and other streaming services don't do well. They do provide more depth for those listeners who want more music discovery than what radio delivers, but they hardly replace the other programming that radio can provide in a timely, localized fashion.

My final word on this discussion is simple. Our "corporate champions" acknowledge that radio has lost revenue and TSL, especially over the last 5 years. Yet, you refuse to acknowledge that changes in programming and management may be responsible for those losses. From your point of view, it's all because other media have become more competitive. Yet, in WNY, where the handful of stations at the top - who are also the top billers - have been less affected (certainly not unaffected) by the cuts - we've done a very good job of hanging on against the competition. If you knew the market, you'd see that Cumulus, who has cut the most, has done the worst in terms of revenue. Go back about 10 years, and they go from #1 to #3 in revenue in the market.

Not investing in your on-air product, whether it's in talent, promotion, or technical facilities, ultimately costs you money. More people listen to terrestrial radio on line these days because they want the programming, because it's easier to receive on their computer than on a radio, especially in offices. Thank you HD radio, changes in AM broadcast standards, and lax enforcement of interference from other electronic devices.

Of course, you guys at the top are happy. The people at the top are the last to feel the pain. You throw the rest of the industry under the bus to insulate yourselves, and spend a lot of time torturing numbers to justify your point of view. Let me ask one question, particularly of our resident radio history buff: "Has your career improved radio as an industry?" Are we better as an industry because of your efforts? Is radio a better and more important purveyor of content because of you?

I really don't care what your answer is. It's just something for you to think about.

 

[TheBigA]

Our "corporate champions" acknowledge that radio has lost revenue and TSL, especially over the last 5 years. Yet, you refuse to acknowledge that changes in programming and management may be responsible for those losses.

Because the facts say otherwise. Yes radio is losing audience, but the specific stations are low power AM stations that no one listens to any more. Corporate owned stations are doing just fine. When you use the word "radio" it encompasses many things. You yourself admit that the big stations in Buffalo are doing well. That's not by accident. And contrary to what you believe, these companies and stations ARE in fact investing in their product. Is the industry better? You bet. What drives this industry, and ANY industry, is money. Somehow, at a time when all the buzz is about digital, there are still people who invest in a hundred year old analog technology. They're not doing it for nothing.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Apparently you missed the part from David that says radio is off 40% since 1998. And show me one study or survey that says "Radio is better". If money is what drives the industry, then apparently it's pretty sickly if it's down 40% in the last 15 years, and 30% since 2008. It's pretty NOT to blame corporate radio since they own most of the stations.

 

[TheBigA]

Apparently you missed the part from David that says radio is off 40% since 1998.

Apparently you missed the part where I said you can't generalize about radio. I can show you some stations that are off by 98% in 15 years, and they're pulling the industry down. And "corporate radio," as you call it, does NOT own "most if the stations." They in fact own a small percentage of the stations. From the numbers I see, they're far more successful than the ones owned by small companies and individuals. Especially in Buffalo.

 

[flybynight]

Is the industry better? You bet.

You really need to qualify that statement, because on it's face, it's absurd.