Age & Radio Jobs

[John FL]

A couple weeks ago, I saw the WJXT channel 4 special honoring Tom Wills’ 40th year as news anchor in Jacksonville. Tom has witnessed and reported a lot of what is now our history. It’s an amazing accomplishment. It got me thinking about age and radio employment.

No matter our work history, I’m sure many of us can look back and recall that time when someone gave us that shot and opportunity. 40 years ago, Tom Wills had relatively no anchor experience yet someone took a chance on him. Without a doubt, WJXT has reaped the rewards of making that right decision for decades. There’s great and poor decisions made all the time. Hiring the right people in radio is critical. Often, it can simply come to going with your gut and taking a chance on someone.

Over the last few years especially, radio news has seen a new, younger breed of reporters and anchors join the scene. Maybe there’s nothing really new about any of that but rather a natural order to things. I’ve noticed Board discussions over the years negatively critique younger, news radio broadcasters. On-air mistakes, mispronounced words, and grammar violations have been cited as not being professional. Well, those are concerns.

I’ve long held the opinion that we are all human and make mistakes, no matter our age. For news/talk formats, credibility is everything. There are those who believe news radio anchors and reporters need to sound mature and be experienced to win over public trust. It’s like the chicken and egg scenario. Experience is gained over time but we all have to start from somewhere.

Knowing what I know about local news/talk WOKV, it would seem coaching and mentoring does take place. I always believed typical listeners want to hear someone on the air they perceive as real. Whether that voice has younger or older inflections may be more the concern of the bean-counters than anyone else. It's probably very complex.

Sometime back, I heard what I perceived as high school sounding silliness on the air late in the afternoon. It’s much improved. Perhaps there were teachable moments WOKV addressed.

Regardless of the broadcasters’ age, if there are blatant mistakes such as the mispronunciation of street names and/or communities, someone in charge must take action to correct it. This doesn’t necessarily apply to WOKV but I’ve witnessed mistakes of all kinds that don’t get corrected to include weather announcements for the WRONG day. This may add to the general belief that no one in charge is listening to the quality of the broadcast. That’s an entirely other issue but it does negatively affect credibility.

It’s normal for radio stations of any format to undergo personnel changes. Often times we can suspect the reasons but sometimes we don’t have a clue. At WOKV, I get the impression, business decisions are being made to incorporate more and younger news voices on air. Perhaps it’s economic. Younger and less-experienced costs less than those commanding a salary commensurate with a 30 or 40 year career. Maybe the feeling is younger listeners will relate more to those on the radio who sound like them and that doesn’t hurt when you are competing for the money demo. These decisions may simply revolve around what corporate wants and there's nothing new about that.

Over the years, I’ve seen a good number of people with successful and proven track records underutilized and a good many have simply disappeared. Obviously, there are far fewer on-air opportunities in radio. Competition is fierce. It’s not uncommon to find mature, experienced talent doing traffic and weather reports coming full circle to what younger broadcasters land as their first radio gig. Some become big fish in small ponds. Some wind up behind the scenes.

In certain businesses, experience matters greatly. In media such as radio, if you are in your 50s or older, it’s not impossible to land a new gig but it’s not that easy either. Those who have survived for many decades, especially those at the same station, have had to change with the times. That’s also not easy.

In the next segment, I’d like to get into presenters one often finds on music formats. I believe there are other considerations beyond age that factor into having an on-air radio job or not. I probably missed other points in news/talk too. More to come.

 

[John FL]

We continue.

Virtually everywhere, I’ve noticed a formula that sets and defines the level of talent participation. I can’t speak for all music formats but I’ve seen some similarities in both AC and classic hits formats. Exceptions as one would expect occur during the morning drive daypart. There’s nothing really new here and it's a pretty predictable M.O.

The interesting story, I believe, is when the on-air presenter, is not in their station’s target demo by a mile yet they are able to relate and give appearances of being a little younger or even older if need be than their true age. Being yourself is an absolute must in my view. But it also goes beyond that.

It also requires getting into your listeners head and talking about the things that interest them. It’s not about being YOUNG per se. It’s about being yourself while having a persona that mirrors the typical listeners who may be younger than you. I know this sounds like a contradiction but many radio survivors have nailed it. It’s one of those I know it when I hear it kind of thing.

Locally, in the case of Arthur Crofton on AC WEJZ, I’m thinking he’s easily 20 years at a minimum senior to the station’s average listener age. Yet, he delivers a morning show everyday talking about all kinds of things I’m sure. I wouldn’t have a clue what a woman 25 years younger than me would find fascinating but this sort of thing is quite common in radio. It’s a big part of the job.

Talent, regardless of his or her age, must execute something either entertaining, funny or informative that is relevant to the P1s, cleverly articulated using the fewest number of words possible while not exceeding time frames set forth by management. Not easy. But those who have the smarts to do that well probably survive better in the business or are able to land a job quicker than those who don’t.

My perceptions tell me seasoned talent probably has more pressure on them to exceed expectations. I witnessed that sort of thing in corporate America. Radio stations owned by big, major corporations probably set the bar real high. Budgets are a big consideration but there is a brand an image set forth by the company. Seasoned talent may have that outstanding track record but they have to constantly demonstrate they are worth the investment and will strengthen that brand.

Some stay in the business perhaps doing that big fish/small pond thing because with a long and successful career, maybe there isn’t anything more to prove. Sometimes we actually experience radio at its best when those who love it and have done so for a very long time get the freedom and latitude to broadcast in a less pressured environment utilizing their skills and knowledge. Maybe it comes down to more of the natural order of things.

More to follow I’m sure

 

[John FL]

We are hearing a good deal of news today about the decline of conservative talk radio, especially Rush’s problems. This got me thinking about a number of things as it applies to age and radio opportunities.

In the 1980s, some former big AM rock personalities found a second chance on FM where the music audience had migrated. Some stuck with AM and became talk show hosts, among other things. Some excelled and some bombed. I’m not sure if Jacksonville had a lot of local talk shows and news/talk formats in the 80s and early 90s but South Florida did.

What I noticed was the ones who seemed the most genuine AKA real seemed to enjoy the most success. These guys fine-tuned their skills and they were able to regain popularity, not as big as what they were in the heyday of AM rock n’ roll but enough to have a gig and even keep some AM stations afloat. There were lots of personal endorsements back then as I recall and that helped in sales.

In time, we saw the emergence of the “shock jock.” This was a break from the plethora of talk shows that were covering the same issues growing stale. Maybe history is repeating itself today. You may have heard of Neil Rogers. He played parodies and talked some taboo subjects and bantered with callers who were sounding younger each day.

Neil was a 50 something guy who didn’t act like he was 30 but the material/subjects/approach all were designed to appeal to the widest audience possible to include younger end 25-54.

Fast forward a bit and we come to Lex & Terry who were on the air in Jax a good number of years in AM drive. My perception of them never changed over the years. In fact when I first heard them in the late 90s, they were huge in Jax. I thought these two were overrated. They also weren’t innovative. Sometimes, even a after a year of not listening, I’d tune in again and it was like I didn’t miss anything.

To tie it to age, I always felt these two middle-aged guys tried a little too hard to be these cool, hip dudes on the radio who were middle aged but thought they could speak and act like 30 something. I witness those in their mid to late 50s and even early 60s who can give the perception of being maybe 45 without sounding silly. It’s very hard to explain but in the end, those with talent are able to pull it off.When listeners had the opportunity to hear a rock jukebox or L&T, they made their choice loud and clear.

The point of all this regarding age of talent and their employment opportunities is listeners tend to gravitate and support those they like and have rapport. At two ends of the spectrum we find young broadcasters who want their shot. There are also those with long and impressive track records who will never get anywhere if they haven’t reinvented themselves. Jocks in the 80s certainly did it. Today, you'd better embrace social media and writing a blog etc. so listeners identify with you. It's an interesting scenario for sure in radio where there's so few opportunities but still so many who want that gig. It really mirrors the job market in the "real world" too.

Still, I tend to be an optimist. Radio is a medium that has seen extraordinary change in relatively a few number of years. It would appear news/talk stations are ripe for some personnel tweaking and perhaps more of an emphasis on news, especially at the local level. That may bring more opportunities to those in broadcasting. We’ll just have to see how that plays out.

This brings me to the sound of the human voice and issues and benefits age brings into the equation. That appears to be the next logical discussion point in this string. More to come.

 

[Groove1670]

In most cases, talent has always been older than their listeners. I don't think they really care as long as the material is and music is relatable to the demo. We in the industry know their age, the listeners don't.

 

[John FL]

The last poster is correct. Overall, listeners do care about content more than they do the age of the presenter. There’s no argument from me. It’s radio management that tends to get nervous. In media and especially radio, listener loyalty exists for long-term talent. Those listeners age and grow out of target. As long as enough new P1s continue to be attracted to the station, management and owners are less likely to make personnel changes but obviously there are no guarantees.

Longevity shouldn’t be a death sentence. To me, it is all about performance.
As I’ve thought about the aging process, there’s more to it than just the outward appearance. There is the voice and that changes over time. I’ve also thought of woman broadcasters and the amount of opportunities they have had or I should say lack thereof in radio as a whole. I have no scientific facts to back me up but I do wonder if female voices don’t age as quickly as male counterparts.

Practically everything revolves around the company and their core values. Some are simply better employers than others. I especially hold Lincoln Financial in South Florida in the highest regard. There is considerable talent longevity at both their AC and classic hits stations.

Long term talent who retired were given the proper send-off. There were with invitations to listeners to participate in a party. That’s classy in my book. Their AC is practically 100% female line-up and they are all part of management too. At their classic hits station, two have remained with the station since the mid 80’s. One is female and is APD and MD. It’s all very impressive. Interestingly too, the female has top billing in their morning team shows. Mindy Lang at WMXJ and Ellen Jaffe at WLYF have voices that have changed very little from the past 30+ years. They still sound on the younger side. It's their presentation that has because radio has changed.

Aging is a tough thing in radio but it’s good to see that it doesn’t always mean being carted off to the junk yard. A couple years ago, LF’s classic hits station saw their very long-termed afternoon personality retire. He was on the radio when Beatlemania struck way back in 1964. That’s a long and impressive career. I know for a fact it was often PM drive ratings that were the best on the station. However, his voice wasn’t what it once was. Sometimes, it’s like the wind just goes out the sails. But, he continued on for quite some time. Not every company would have done that. Today, his replacement is quite good but probably 30+ years younger.

As we all know classic hits, especially Greatest Hits formats, have changed and it’s attracting an entirely different audience than what they have in the past. That PM drive replacement now goes 100% 80’s on Friday afternoons and it works very well because that was his time. He also does a Thursday live remote broadcast from night spots/bars/lounges etc. There’s probably a better shot the audience they want to attract will relate more to the “new guy” when they see him in that setting.

I believe diversity is key to the success of a radio station and the cluster, especially for those who still invest in on the air talent. I applaud the companies who see merit in seasoned employees and don’t rush to judgement.We also can't forget the importance of hiring the right younger broadcasters as well. In the end, I suspect many seasoned broadcasters can figure the handwriting on the wall on their own.

 

[TheBigA]

Longevity shouldn’t be a death sentence. To me, it is all about performance.
As I’ve thought about the aging process, there’s more to it than just the outward appearance.

That's true. There's also lifestyle. If the air talent has grandchildren, that's not the same experience as having children. If the air talent vacations in the south of France, that's not the same experience as vacationing at Disney. If the air talent watches public TV, that's not the same experience as watching reality TV. If your audience is doing one thing, and the air talent is doing another, that's potentially a problem. We call that losing touch with the audience. The audience can quickly recognize it, but the air talent usually can't. They're just talking about what they know. But by doing that, they're speaking to a different audience than the one they're supposed to reach. There are ways to guard against this problem, but it takes work. Not everyone can do it.

 

[John FL]

Yes, I would agree some broadcasters will talk about what they know and like and that doesn’t always translate into listener interest and relevance. There are topics I may not find interesting but if I’m not anywhere near the target demo, that criticism is probably not valid anyway.

Still, I don’t think mindless babbling serves anyone well. We also can’t assume any particular age group is guiltier than another. Some time ago, our market had a young husband/wife morning show on a mix format I’d say targeted mid 25-54. Almost always, daily conversation was about their baby described in glorious detail to include bowl movements. It was a turn off and needless to say, they didn’t last long because it all got old very quick.

Effective management will ensure coaching and mentoring takes place to get talent back on track. There may be a fine line too. Some managers do micromanage. That kind of interference can be just as bad as neglecting problems. Those type situations have been reported. Sometimes it's dis-grunted employees speaking but it would appear every age group can be negatively affected by ineffective managment.

Today’s environment, however, sometimes ties the hands of even the most effective management teams. A number of companies utilize in house talent who voice track various stations and sometimes even different formats. How does local management critique performance, if that is necessary? From the talent’s standpoint, I’m sure they don’t appreciate hearing from 10 different GMs offering what could be contrary advice because it's based on individual market/station needs.

As we all know, depending on the company, sometimes there is little choice but to air X # of folks from the company talent pool. I’ve made assumptions in the last paragraph. Perhaps local management only involves itself with the local talent. When that voice tracker talent’s contract is up (if they are even under contract) maybe then corrective measures are made. Syndicated programming has its' own sets of challenges too I'm sure.

Then there’s of course there’s 24/7 lifeless automation. Besides, cost savings, perhaps with limited management resources it represents less headaches to have to deal with air-shift people issues no matter their age. It’s probably all very complex. Who gets that radio job? Who gets to keep their job? Who are the people management loves? Who are the ones they would like replaced? It's not always about the ratings or at least that's what we hear sometimes. I still have to wonder how much talent age plays into the various scenarios.

 

[John FL]

Unless there are additional comments that take us in other directions, it’s probably best to wrap this up. Age may be a difficult subject to discuss in a forum such as this. Maybe it’s a little abstract too or perhaps it’s a subject more appropriate in the business of radio board.

There’s been occasional exceptions here and there but I’ve been disengaged from Jax radio for over 3 years now. I can’t really speak to anything specific at length and that’s because my local radio listening has been at an all-time low. It’s all a self-imposed exile but over the last few days I did hear two stations playing in the background and for lack of a better word, I was shocked in what I heard at both but for different reasons.

As far as how this all relates to age and media jobs, I agree with an earlier poster. There is a lot of dependency on content and attracting sufficient key demos sought by managers and owners. If these targeted listeners are happy with the station, and the whole package including the amount and kind of banter, talent age doesn’t matter.

I’ve resorted to topics such as this for no other reason but to get increased interest and participation back on this board. Perhaps, after all that has happened in Jax radio, it’s clear most of the posters have gone away feeling nothing they say or do will have any effect on what is in the grand scheme of things. That's a defeatist attitude.

A few weeks ago, I had one of those internet accidents where I looked something up that had to do with WOKV and I came to discover Roxy Tyler was dismissed back in November, 2014. Talk about my not being engaged in local radio! I had no idea that happened!

At this point, it’s not about the reasons for the decision but why that news didn’t merit a mention on this board. Regardless of whatever personal feelings one may have, here was someone who was with the station for close to 20 years which in this day and age is a great accomplishment. The business of radio has gotten so cold.

It’s becoming abundantly clear. Both the faces of news on TV and the voices we hear on news radio with the exception of the syndicated talk shows, are progressively getting younger. To expand on what I said earlier, I don’t look at people for the purposes of labeling them. Skill sets and performance are big with me. Still, I believe when there is diversity in the workplace under the umbrella of inclusion across ethnicity, gender, experience, and representation across the age spectrum etc. that tends to make for a strong team. Not everyone agrees with my view.

The press release I read regarding Roxy’s departure was really no different than what I’ve seen elsewhere. We often hear a station/format is set to change direction and so that becomes the justification in making personnel changes. If you think about it, that is the ultimate slap in the face for a long-term talent.

Regardless of age, in effect what that says is management/owners don’t have faith and confidence in that person or persons to be able to transition to the new target environment. Let’s be real, there are corporate edicts and the pleasing of the big brass and that’s almost always why things happen as they do.

This may sound strange coming from me but I really don’t know what to say anymore. I'm talked out and frustrated but have no regrets in at least attempting to get more board participation going.