Radio Is Dead? Really? What are we really saying?

[b-turner]

Again Avid Listener, you show your true self. What have you to contribute that might be positive?

 

[Avid Listener]

Again Avid Listener, you show your true self. What have you to contribute that might be positive?

I am positive that radio "AS WE NOW KNOW IT" will soon wither away to irrelevance. I am positive that any alternatives that come along to replace it, which I am positive shouldn't be called "radio", will not be burden with ultra-tight, over-tested playlists of burned out songs, unless in a situation where there are so many alternative streams that every conceivable genre of music will be on its own highly focuses stream. I am positive that any sort of announcements of artist and title between songs on the new alternative media that replaces radio will not be "personality" disc jockeys. They will simply be voices not unlike those on robotic telephone answering systems. They might even be the same voices.

I am positive that the suits who run radio today are simply too full of themselves, and that they over estimate their importance in providing "expertise" as terrestrial, OTA radio slips into irrelevance. I am positive that the slip into irrelevance is not caused by the rise of new technology, but rather that enterprising people are using new technology to fill the void left by the poor performance of the suits who run modern, OTA radio.

Is that positive enough?

I genuinely and truly believe that the suits who have ruined an entertainment medium I used to enjoy reveal themselves as egotistical and incompetent, and so full of themselves that they refuse to even attempt to step back a pace and look at what their collective efforts have done towards destroying OTA radio as an entertainment medium. They have built OTA Radio into a giant soap bubble, bigger in size than it once was (and they'll always brag about how big the bubble is) that's only a single pin-prick away from bursting. That's what I am positive of.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I am positive that radio "AS WE NOW KNOW IT" will soon wither away to irrelevance.

Since "we" range in age from the very old to the very young, what is radio "AS WE NOW KNOW IT"?

I remember coming home from school and heading for the radio to hear Tom Mix and Captain Marvel and Sky King.

I remember sitting home at night and listening to Fibber McGee and Molly, to Sam Spade, Private Eye.

I remember sitting home with my children on Saturday and to the music of "Today is the day of the Teddy Bears Picnic".

I remember sitting in the studio and hearing all the tones and delicacies along with the warts and freckles of the latest records from SUN RECORDS on the monster studio monitors as Elvis and Jerry Lee and John Cash turned our radio world up-side-down.

My daughter just sent me a link to a delightful hour-long talk segment on a Public Radio Station in Wisconsin about this era of PODCASTING and radio stations now having a format with one podcast segment followed by the next and the next. I spent the rest of my day thinking back to NBC RADIO and MONITOR. When was that? The early to mid 50s? I can remember driving to Army Reserve Drills in the late 1950s and listening to NBC on the Little Rock, AR station to Nightline which was a kind of last-gasp of the Monitor style. But to me, the whole current day trend to string a bunch of features together like beads on a necklace seems to have it's roots in NBC MONITOR.

Get over it, Hoss. Out here on the ranch all the cowhands know that change follows change, which is then chased by a new change which is flushed out by yet another change. What is so sacred about "RADIO AS WE NOW KNOW IT"? that it shouldn't be changed? You know..... RADIO AS WE NOW KNOW IT... in the view of the 'Old Timer' is just a bunch of crap that needs to be changed, because what we have is not very appealing.

 

[TheBigA]

I genuinely and truly believe that the suits who have ruined an entertainment medium I used to enjoy reveal themselves as egotistical and incompetent, and so full of themselves that they refuse to even attempt to step back a pace and look at what their collective efforts have done towards destroying OTA radio as an entertainment medium.

Henry Ford ruined and destroyed the fine art of travel. Sam Walton ruined shopping. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs ruined everything. Sure, all of the things people once did and loved have been ruined because of innovation and change. We don't live in the past anymore. Boo hoo. You're getting old and you can't deal with it.

Things change. No one ruined anything. The kind of radio you want is still there. But people want to listen to it on other devices. If anyone ruined the radio you once loved, it's other people. The marketplace itself. Just as the people, choosing price over service, destroyed so many small town businesses and instead shopped at big box chain stores. I'd be glad to continue to do the radio you once loved, but I'd lose money, and only old people would listen. I'm not in the museum business. I like museums, and I go to lots of them, but I don't aspire to run one. I'm in popular culture, and what I do changes as the PEOPLE change, and as they demand new and different things.

Don't blame us for how your world is changing. Blame yourself. Take responsibility for a change. Yes, the world you once knew is going away. Sorry about that. But don't blame someone else for that. You're the one who got old. Young people have no memory of how things used to be. They just do what they like, and if that includes doing things differently, then that's what they do.

 

[Avid Listener]

Since "we" range in age from the very old to the very young, what is radio "AS WE NOW KNOW IT"?

It is radio as it is NOW. Not as it was. Not as it will be. Not as we wish it to be. It is as it is NOW.

Henry Ford ruined and destroyed the fine art of travel. Sam Walton ruined shopping. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs ruined everything. Sure, all of the things people once did and loved have been ruined because of innovation and change. We don't live in the past anymore. Boo hoo. You're getting old and you can't deal with it.

No, Henry Ford revolutionized travel and greatly improved it. Sam Walton made shopping easier and enabled people to buy more things with less money, and in less time. Bill Gates revolutionized how we conducted business and how we live. Steve Jobs was over-rated. Many, many things are much, much better than they used to be. Movie special effects are an amazing, wondrous thing. There are so many things in the world today that are so much better than they were in the past, it makes the few things that have gotten worse (like radio) all the more obvious.

Some things from the past are gone, and I'm sorry to see them go. But those things were simply destined to be replaced. But OTA radio, that's something that could have remained something relevant, but instead was turned into doo-doo by the short-sighted egotists who run it.

Perhaps one indicator of how the suits who ruined radio think is the response that because someone recognizes that something has degenerated into irrelevance, that simply indicates that he's an old stick-in-the-mud who cannot accept change. Which is comical when it comes from someone whose sole argument in favor of what the suits have done to ruin radio is to fall back on, "But we've always done it that way!".

 

[TGunn]

I have noticed in the past 10+ years radio shows have more support staff doing most of the talking. Why do shows have a main host or two co-hosts names attached if they are not talking half the time. These Air Talent are being paid top dollar and are underused. An example would be Preston and Steve here in Philly at WMMR. I like to hear Steve as he is the funny one..also a professional comedian. It seems he talks the least and has to wedge in a comment as best he can. But maybe their ratings are great, I dont' know. But when I hear the support staff talking more and interviewing guests I tune out. These people have never had a show of their own that I know of. I don't care how many movies the producer or stunt guy or whatever he is has seen.. I really want to hear Steve more and he is getting paid more.. He should be on more..
The top 40 morning shows are even worse. They seem to just want to mimmick tv shows. No one has an original thought on radio.. It's all copying TV ideas..

 

[TheBigA]

Some things from the past are gone, and I'm sorry to see them go. But those things were simply destined to be replaced. But OTA radio, that's something that could have remained something relevant, but instead was turned into doo-doo by the short-sighted egotists who run it.

Had you been alive 100 years ago, you'd say Henry Ford destroyed transportation, and you'd cling to your horse as violently as you cling to other things from your past.

Radio still is relevant...just not for you. Just as lots of other things you used to do have died or gone away. But for other people, it's all new and exciting and relevant.

Which is comical when it comes from someone whose sole argument in favor of what the suits have done to ruin radio is to fall back on, "But we've always done it that way!".

But we HAVEN'T always done it that way, and that's why you're angry. You WANT us to do things the way we used to. You're angry that we don't. I can tell you that for myself, just about everything I do is much different from the way I used to do it ten years ago. I didn't change because corporate told me to. I changed because the marketplace around me changed, and I recognized it. But for you, you have a memory of how things once were, and want things to stay the same. Sorry, but life doesn't work that way.

 

[Kelly A]

Well said! I've been in the broadcasting business professionally since 1980 (earlier, if you consider part time work) and admit it has changed from when I got into the business. That being said, the reality is everything has to change and evolve. You can't remain in front of the pack if you don't move.

 

[K.M. Richards]

Since "we" range in age from the very old to the very young, what is radio "AS WE NOW KNOW IT"?

It is radio as it is NOW. Not as it was. Not as it will be. Not as we wish it to be. It is as it is NOW.

That's not what you said, Avid. GRC quoted you accurately. See following.

I am positive that radio "AS WE NOW KNOW IT" will soon wither away to irrelevance. I am positive that any alternatives that come along to replace it, which I am positive shouldn't be called "radio", will not be burden with ultra-tight, over-tested playlists of burned out songs, unless in a situation where there are so many alternative streams that every conceivable genre of music will be on its own highly focuses stream. I am positive that any sort of announcements of artist and title between songs on the new alternative media that replaces radio will not be "personality" disc jockeys. They will simply be voices not unlike those on robotic telephone answering systems. They might even be the same voices.

I am positive that the suits who run radio today are simply too full of themselves, and that they over estimate their importance in providing "expertise" as terrestrial, OTA radio slips into irrelevance. I am positive that the slip into irrelevance is not caused by the rise of new technology, but rather that enterprising people are using new technology to fill the void left by the poor performance of the suits who run modern, OTA radio.

Is that positive enough?

Nice semantics. You're positive about being negative. I hope it causes a short circuit.

 

[Avid Listener]

Had you been alive 100 years ago, you'd say Henry Ford destroyed transportation, and you'd cling to your horse as violently as you cling to other things from your past.

********!

 

[b-turner]

Radio has 243 plus million listeners or 91.3% of the population 12 years or older listening every week. This includes all platforms. Per the Radio Advertising Bureau. Avid Listener has produced no information to substantiate his claims. I suppose he thinks this is falsified. His is one opinion and it seems he believes everyone but him is wrong. If he bothered to demonstrate some basis for his opinion, then he has something worth considering.

I could surmise that Avid Listener has a true lack of understanding of radio. First that radio is a business. Second, that radio is not about us nor our personal opinions but rather responding to what our listeners say they want and what our bosses say they want.

I agree radio is threatened by new listening options and radio is trying to recreate itself, to remain viable and in demand for the masses. Radio has fared pretty well considering all the other options available.

So Avid Listener, where are your facts. You must not have any as you have yet to present anything of any use. I'm not sure I really want you listening anyway. Your comments in my opinion are bitter, mean and demonstrate your lack of knowledge about this business and what is involved. I would assume you have never owned a business and question if you have ever been in the radio business.

How about some research we can consider, otherwise we dismiss you as just some mean spirited person who enjoys trying to belittle people who do not behold you as the new prophet of radio. My impressions may be completely wrong but I think this based on your comments.

 

[Avid Listener]

Radio has 243 plus million listeners or 91.3% of the population 12 years or older listening every week. This includes all platforms. Per the Radio Advertising Bureau.

There are 243 plus million people who have been within range of hearing a radio, usually as background noise. It a gross exaggeration to call them "listeners". When my furnace or air conditioner kicks in, I can hear the sound of the fan that's blowing air. That doesn't mean I'm an HVAC "listener".

 

[b-turner]

Again, what research do you offer? None?

 

[landtuna]

Radio has 243 plus million listeners or 91.3% of the population 12 years or older listening every week.

Are these 243 individual listeners or is that the number of listener segments and if listener segments are those unique or multiple? Your claim, in and of itself, does not say anything. It could be 50 million individuals listening 2 times per day each (times an average 5 day commute) or a teenager listening for an hour after school each day or any one of a dozen other definitions. And, whereas watching TV does take a greater active interest, listening to radio takes nothing.

The RAB does not detail just how its stats are derived. Given its self-interest I would tend to doubt the numbers very seriously just from a common sense standpoint.

 

[b-turner]

TSL is about 12 hours. What research can you point to to dispute the RAB? I am positive the RAB paints as lovely a picture it can. I'd love to know of alternatives to this.

Google RAB and take a look.

For so long we have questioned ratings but as flawed as they may or may not be, they are the only source and so many hundreds of millions of dollars in advertising hinge on those statistics.

 

[Avid Listener]

Again, what research do you offer? None?

That makes two of us, unless you consider self-serving statistics issued by an industry promotion group as "research".

 

[b-turner]

Again what research do you offer? I think I know the answer.

 

[davideduardo]

That makes two of us, unless you consider self-serving statistics issued by an industry promotion group as "research".

The statistics were not "issued" by the RAB but, rather, quoted in RAB material. The source is the Nielsen national data.

 

[davideduardo]

The RAB does not detail just how its stats are derived. Given its self-interest I would tend to doubt the numbers very seriously just from a common sense standpoint.

The RAB data, as I posted to Avid, comes from the Nielsen surveys.

243 million people use radio at least once a week for a maximum of 15 minutes. It is called "cume" and is an abbreviation of "cumulative" meaning the sum of all users. It is like "circulation" for print media; there is no guarantee that a newspaper buyer will see the page your ad is on or read anything except the sports section.

The average time spent listening per week is around 12 hours. That contemplates light listeners and heavy listeners all bundled together. For every 1 hour a week listener, there is a 30 hour a week one.[/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[BOZ Profit]

We have something we found to add to the conversation:

Numbers coming out of a Morgan Stanley survey released to its investors, and reported on Quartz, show radio is healthy, very healthy indeed.

Read More Here then come back and discuss why you agree or disagree with these findings...