• 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

Changes at WNSH 94.7

This has been discussed more than once on this board. Co-owned WMAS first needs to reconfigure their signal, to avoid interference with WNSH. The work has apparently not been completed. Perhaps it has been delayed by the pandemic.
BTW, RadioInsight reports that WNSH afternoon host Jesse Addy will now also be broadcast on Miami station WKIS.
 
While 33 rpm LP microgroove disks were indeed released to consumers only in 1948, the 16" transcription discs used in professional radio applications were at 33 rpm as early as the 1930s. I have some in my collection. They were not microgroove - they typically used the same larger needle and grooves as the 78s of the era, which is why you still only got 15 minutes at moast to a side. (At 78, you'd get perhaps 6 or 7 minutes on one side of a 16" disc.)
ETs use an intermediate groove size, designed to be played with a 2 to 2.5 mil stylus.

Some of them used vertical (hill and dale) grooves, rather than normal lateral (side to side) grooves.
 
The addition of national programming to WNSH may make sense from a business perspective, but is a step backward in terms of the way the station sounds. During the midday and evening shows, there is no reference to anything local, and nothing is said about the songs being played. Those that listen only from time to time to country music may not know the names of the tunes and the artists, unless their radio has RDS.
 
The addition of national programming to WNSH may make sense from a business perspective, but is a step backward in terms of the way the station sounds.

Harry Stonecipher, then CEO of Boeing, told the Chicago Tribune in 2004: “When people say I changed the culture of Boeing, that was the intent, so it’s run like a business rather than a great engineering firm.”

Last week, in its final report on the deadly crashes of Boeing's 737 Max aircraft, the U.S. House Transportation Committee concluded that the changes at Boeing led to a company culture where safety was sacrificed to production pressures, ultimately leading to the fatally flawed design that crashed with deadly results. The CEO who steered Boeing toward this fate is no longer with the company but every 737 Max has been grounded for the past two years and the company has suffered irreparable damage to its reputation and its financial health as a result.

I can't help but see a parallel between Harry Stonecipher's actions and those of corporate radio's CEO's today. They are changing the culture of radio so it's run like a business instead of a great entertainment medium. I wonder how long it will be until it crashes and burns just like the 737 Max, and everyone looks back in shock wondering what went wrong.
 
I can't help but see a parallel between Harry Stonecipher's actions and those of corporate radio's CEO's today. They are changing the culture of radio so it's run like a business instead of a great entertainment medium. I wonder how long it will be until it crashes and burns just like the 737 Max, and everyone looks back in shock wondering what went wrong.

I have been at this radio thing for 61 years now, and I can not think of any commercial radio station where I have been part of the team that is not run as a business first*. The understanding is that a good business serves its customers and those customers are advertisers. However, our product is listenership and customers want big pieces of that. So to serve advertisers we must satisfy listeners.

I never thought of myself as being in the "entertainment" business; I was in the radio business and that meant to be successful you had to reach the right listeners and then sell that reach to advertisers.

Yes, there are some radio executives that are not passionate about the programming, specifically ones like David Field, but there are others who have been successful programmers and station managers like Pittman at iHeart and Christian at Saga; they know the balance between programming and business.

* Except for an AM in Lima, Peru, that was an outreach station personally started by Cardinal Rickets Landazuri. But he also had an FM that I programmed that was commercial and supposed to finance the AM.
 
Last edited:
I have been at this radio thing for 61 years now, and I can not think of any commercial radio station where I have been part of the team that is not run as a business first. The understanding is that a good business serves its customers and those customers are advertisers. However, our product is listenership and customers want big pieces of that. So to serve advertisers we must satisfy listeners.

I never thought of myself as being in the "entertainment" business; I was in the radio business and that meant to be successful you had to reach the right listeners and then sell that reach to advertisers.

I don't like people in radio who can't understand that they're in the entertainment business. The radio business is all about entertainment. Without that, you rightfully should not attract a good audience which means you won't have anything to offer your customers, the advertisers. It's a simple concept but there are a too many corporate leaders who can't stop degrading their product. People who operate radio companies who only value the ads and don't put any priority on the entertainment are the problem with this business.

I never thought of myself as being in the "entertainment" business.

That's also a really insulting thing to say to the talent that helped put the money in your pocket as a radio owner for so many years. You make it sound like they're nothing to you. I can assure you that's how a lot of on air people feel about their employers today too.
 
I don't like people in radio who can't understand that they're in the entertainment business. The radio business is all about entertainment. Without that, you rightfully should not attract a good audience which means you won't have anything to offer your customers, the advertisers. It's a simple concept but there are a too many corporate leaders who can't stop degrading their product. People who operate radio companies who only value the ads and don't put any priority on the entertainment are the problem with this business.

We are not in the entertainment business: we get no revenue from entertaining people. We are in the advertising business. We get money from advertisers by delivering pairs of ears. To do that, we try to do the best possible job in attracting listeners.

But our business is not entertainment. It is advertising.

That's also a really insulting thing to say to the talent that helped put the money in your pocket as a radio owner for so many years. You make it sound like they're nothing to you. I can assure you that's how a lot of on air people feel about their employers today too.

I did not say that. I explained that radio's job is to attract listeners that advertisers want to reach. That means tailoring programming to the ages and qualities that advertisers want. Listenership is our product, but advertisers are our customer.

I have always felt that the station that did the best job satisfying listeners made the most money. But that does not distract from the fact that listeners are not our customers.
 
Last edited:
We are not in the entertainment business: we get no revenue from entertaining people. We are in the advertising business. We get money from advertisers by delivering pairs of ears. To do that, we try to do the best possible job in attracting listeners.

But our business is not entertainment. It is advertising.



I did not say that. I explained that radio's job is to attract listeners that advertisers want to reach. That means tailoring programming to the ages and qualities that advertisers want. Listenership is our product, but advertisers are our customer.

I have always felt that the station that did the best job satisfying listeners made the most money. But that does not distract from the fact that listeners are not our customers.

This is why the Death Spiral continues. It's getting harder to find "New Pairs of Ears". Potential listeners have unlimited options elsewhere. Most people under 40 have no use for Radio.

Since it's been established that 55+ demos are not desirable, that leaves Radio in a World of ****...

Since you say, Radio is not about entertainment--
Run more paid programming. Nobody listens to it except the guy who paid for it...
 
Last edited:
This is why the Death Spiral continues. It's getting harder to find "New Pairs of Ears". Potential listeners have unlimited options elsewhere. Most people under 40 have no use for Radio.

Your figures, of course, are wrong. While they support your argument, they are not correct by a long shot.

Taking one large market as an example (they all are quite similar) LA shows 88% of persons 18-34 listen to AM and FM radio. In 18-49 it is just over 91% and in 25-54 it is 91% in a multi-month average prior to the pandemic.

Back in 1995, the LA figure in 25-54 was 94%. There has always been a tiny percent that don't listen, and a study done by Arbitron showed that a majority had to do with illness, a family emergency, travel or something comparable.

Since it's been established that 55+ demos are not desirable, that leaves Radio in a World of ****...

There are a number of local owners in places like Buffalo and Tucson and Palm Springs that are doing 45+ formats aimed at older listeners. Agencies won't buy them much, but they get results for local merchants. It's an encouraging trend that likely will grow as it is seen that there is money there.

And there are some groups, and I am thinking of one in Sioux City, that have a number of stations looking at this local revenue alternative.
 
Though the majority of people are still listening to radio, isn't TSL declining?

BTW, though I have been unenthusiastic about the new weekday network programming on WNSH, at least they are now carrying a new national 90's country music show. It runs Sunday mornings, and is hosted by their morning personality, Kelly Ford.
 
We are not in the entertainment business: we get no revenue from entertaining people. We are in the advertising business.

It depends on who the "we" is. Sure there are a lot of people in radio who see it that way. The CEOs, the GMs the sales people all see things from a strictly financial point of view. And it's important that they see it that way. Somebody has to pay the bills. But they delegate the content to a group of people who are pretty divorced from advertising and sales. When I go to a conference of programmers and air talent, we're not talking about advertising. We're talking about either music or talk subjects. WNSH is bringing in some recording artists to co-host the mid-day show. Those artists aren't thinking about advertising. They're thinking about their music.

Keep in mind, 20% of the radio stations in this country are non-commercial. The people at WFUV don't see themselves in the advertising business. The people at WNYC don't see themselves in advertising. The people who run the new WPLJ don't think about advertising at all. So it's complicated. It depends on who you talk to.
 
It depends on who the "we" is. Sure there are a lot of people in radio who see it that way. The CEOs, the GMs the sales people all see things from a strictly financial point of view.

I swear some of them might as well be selling insurance. If you have no interest in the product, what are you doing in the business? And yet, that's the reality of so many companies, not just radio. These people rise from the MBA world to land that executive role in whatever field it may be, which is of secondary concern to them. Once there. it's all about their bonuses and the cuts begin. It's the time-honored Wall Street culture.
 
I swear some of them might as well be selling insurance.

In fact, there was a time when several insurance companies owned radio stations. Nationwide and Jefferson-Pilot were major radio station owners up until recently. National Life Insurance started WSM in Nashville. There are more that I can't think of. It was not unusual for people who sold insurance to end up working at the company radio station. In fact, Bud Wendell started selling insurance door to door, and ultimately became the GM of WSM.

On the other hand, you speak with most of the DJs and they'll tell you how fortunate they are to be working in radio because there's nothing else they're qualified to do. Of course there aren't any qualifications to be on the air either.

But as I've been saying throughout all of these Entercom threads, the reason why these changes are happening is because the people on the creative side have been losing to other radio companies. The job of anyone in creative is to do such a good job that you can't be easily replaced. You're not seeing big changes at WFAN or WINS.
 
W Travelers Insurance Company comes to mind.

Thank you!

These insurance companies used their radio stations to help sell insurance. Not just through commercials. Bud Wendell tells a story that he'd knock on peoples' doors selling insurance, and people might not want to open their door to an insurance salesman. But when he brought up the Grand Ole Opry, they wanted to know about Minnie Pearl. After he warmed them up talking about the Opry, they'd usually be willing to buy insurance.

That gets back to radio not being in the entertainment business. Sure, radio doesn't have to be entertaining to sell advertising. Radio can run info-mercials and that kind of thing. But they find they can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. You can make more money if you're entertaining. That's why some info-mercials hire celebrities to host their shows.
 
But as I've been saying throughout all of these Entercom threads, the reason why these changes are happening is because the people on the creative side have been losing to other radio companies. The job of anyone in creative is to do such a good job that you can't be easily replaced. You're not seeing big changes at WFAN or WINS.

That's not the case with these latest cuts. It was all about cost cutting. They eliminated talent in specific dayparts at their stations across the country and replaced them with a nationally or regionally distributed host. I'm pretty sure if you look at the numbers in the affected markets the local hosts were doing just fine in most cases. This was all about eliminating multiple salaries by throwing creative people out of work. I can guarantee more bonuses will soon be handed out to the Entercom CEO and board, though. It always comes down to that.
 
It depends on who the "we" is. Sure there are a lot of people in radio who see it that way. The CEOs, the GMs the sales people all see things from a strictly financial point of view. And it's important that they see it that way. Somebody has to pay the bills. But they delegate the content to a group of people who are pretty divorced from advertising and sales. When I go to a conference of programmers and air talent, we're not talking about advertising. We're talking about either music or talk subjects. WNSH is bringing in some recording artists to co-host the mid-day show. Those artists aren't thinking about advertising. They're thinking about their music.

Back a few years, I was one of five national PDs selected for the "Super Session" at the NAB radio convention. I was joined by the national heads from Clear Channel, Urban One, and two others.

In the Green Room, three of them sort of separated to talk about their techniques... techniques of getting the annual budgets prepared and dealing with the accountants. Only Mary Catherine from Urban One and I actually talked programming.

So much of the commercial radio industry deals with costs and budgets much of the time.

And even if we can delegate some of that, we have to focus on programming that attracts the right audience and enough audience to sell. Even in your examples of artists to co-host, we think about which artists have the most core demographic appeal.

Even in my first PD position, which I obtained by naming myself to the post, I knew that we were a commercial station and that we had to have significant impact from the first day we were on the air... so that we'd eventually be able to sustain the operation.

Sure, in some cases management sets the budget and says, "here is what you have for the year for salaries, benefits, promotions, the prize closet, events and everything else". But the PD has to have enough management skills to know how to stay in the budget at the same time that they are scheduling music, picking adds, analyzing the ratings and research, doing airchecks with the talent and all the rest.

Obviously, when programmers meet inside a company with multiple stations, it's different. The budgets are done, and conversations are about talent, music scheduling, how much time to let artists talk during interviews and all the little details where discussion ends up honing skills and overcoming doubts the newer PDs might have.

But wherever I have worked in commercial radio, step one was always the combining of budgeting and targeting the format to achieve the highest revenue goals.

My internship in Mexico at age 17 was in pure programming. I ended up a year later building my own station because the only place I could be a larger market PD at that age was at my own station... but I quickly learned that programming had to be part of a business plan to be self-sustaining. Anyone in commercial radio that does not get that will not succeed.

If you look at another art form, look at the extremes. Most of the Impressionists in the 19th and early 20th Century could barely pay for rent and food. Today, works by Monet, Pissaro, Renoir and Sisley go for many millions, but the artists are dead. But the guy who does caricatures at Universal Studios theme park is rumored to bring in a nice six figure income; he can paint during his leisure hours if that is what moves him. For that matter, how many skilled artists work within very tight schedules and budgets at ad agencies? They are still artists to the core, but they work within a system.
 
That's not the case with these latest cuts. It was all about cost cutting.

How many local hosts were cut at WFAN or newscasters at WINS? The mid-days and evenings were cut because the audience dropped during those two times. They kept the mornings live at most stations.

I can guarantee more bonuses will soon be handed out to the Entercom CEO and board, though. It always comes down to that.

That's fine. I don't begrudge any execs from getting bonuses. You couldn't pay me enough to do their job. It's not why I got into radio, and I've been fortunate to avoid doing that kind of work, while staying employed and well compensated.
 
That's not the case with these latest cuts. It was all about cost cutting. They eliminated talent in specific dayparts at their stations across the country and replaced them with a nationally or regionally distributed host. I'm pretty sure if you look at the numbers in the affected markets the local hosts were doing just fine in most cases. This was all about eliminating multiple salaries by throwing creative people out of work. I can guarantee more bonuses will soon be handed out to the Entercom CEO and board, though. It always comes down to that.

That is a very different issue.

If you account for inflation as well as the effects of smart phones / streaming, the PPM, the economy changing 2008-09 recession and a new generation at the ad agencies, radio as an industry now bills about 35% of what it did 15 years ago.

That can't sustain the 15,495 licensed radio stations, of which 11,005 are commercial. And if you add in translators, there are 15,348 commercial signals on AM and FM.

So the result is a lot of rethinking of the "local is best" program philosophy that actually came from Congress and the Commission back in the 30's as part of an effort to avoid concentration of control of new media. We are seeing that economics are forcing American radio to resort to centralized programming, network operation and a general "we can't invent the same format locally in 25 different markets". Much of the rest of the world discovered that half a century or more ago.

Today, we have such amazing technology that networks don't have to use low-fi phone lines or highly structured outside programming. No more back timing the last record in the hour to meet the network news. Now, we use computers to assemble the workparts locally, but get most of them from a single format source. We can even time-shift personality shows so that they seem live and local in every time zone.

When Bing Crosby helped finance Ampex in the 40's, he likely never envisioned taped broadcasts would come to this. But then again, he'd not be particularly surprised, either. He was only looking at technology as a way to provide the best programming to as many people as possible. And that also made him extremely wealthy!
 
But the guy who does caricatures at Universal Studios theme park is rumored to bring in a nice six figure income; he can paint during his leisure hours if that is what moves him. For that matter, how many skilled artists work within very tight schedules and budgets at ad agencies? They are still artists to the core, but they work within a system.

That's a career choice people make. People can work for small radio companies, or non-commercial stations if they prefer. They can start their own hobby stations. Lots of options. But if you choose to work for a big company, you paint by their numbers. You know that going in. The good part about working for a big company is their checks never bounce, you get solid benefits, and you have the potential to make a lot of money. You might also become famous. The bad part is you might have to make some compromises. And you might get fired, as is the case with some of these folks. But I know people in other lines of work facing the exact same fate right now. And they didn't get to have much fun in the process.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom