My Guest Column on Radio Insight

[davideduardo]

Shameless self promotion notice:

RadioInsight has published a guest column I wrote.

https://radioinsight.com/ross/199614/network-no-national-yes/

Please give it a read and add your comments.

 

[TheBigA]

My view is that just because a company decides to air one or two of its hosts aver 20 or 30 of its owned stations doesn't in fact mean we're having a nationalization of radio. When you consider the impact that Casey Kasem had during his career, or Rush Limbaugh on 650 stations, or Larry King when he was the King of the Night, there isn't a lot like that happening now. These were people who have become legends beyond their format. They were true NATIONAL radio hosts. You look at the success of Steve Harvey or the Breakfast Club, but if you talk about either of those shows to someone who isn't in that culture, they've never heard of them. Add to that the decline of the usage of OTA radio, and you have an even smaller level of impact. There was a lot of hand-wringing when Entercom replaced local hosts on their 25 country stations with centralized hosts. But the fact is that if you're not in one of those affected markets or if you don't listen to one of those stations in that format, nothing has changed.

What this HAS done is made the streaming of local radio less interesting. At one time, you could hear a wide range of local talent by streaming out of market stations. Now some of those talents are available on your own local station. So there's less need to stream for certain talent. That's a bad thing for radio companies looking to build their streaming business on their owned talent. So as Entercom pushes their Radio.com app, why bother if you can hear that same talent on your local station?

So what we're seeing less of a nationalization of talent and more of an internalization of talent. In a way its similar to how Apple or Google try to keep you in their product universe. But if you're not in their culture, you don't know it exists. In this way, it's less likely that there ever will be someone like Casey Kasem or Larry King ever again. Because no one else will ever be that cross-genre, cross company, cross-market kind of personality.

 

[davideduardo]

My view is that just because a company decides to air one or two of its hosts aver 20 or 30 of its owned stations doesn't in fact mean we're having a nationalization of radio. When you consider the impact that Casey Kasem had during his career, or Rush Limbaugh on 650 stations, or Larry King when he was the King of the Night, there isn't a lot like that happening now. These were people who have become legends beyond their format. They were true NATIONAL radio hosts. You look at the success of Steve Harvey or the Breakfast Club, but if you talk about either of those shows to someone who isn't in that culture, they've never heard of them. Add to that the decline of the usage of OTA radio, and you have an even smaller level of impact. There was a lot of hand-wringing when Entercom replaced local hosts on their 25 country stations with centralized hosts. But the fact is that if you're not in one of those affected markets or if you don't listen to one of those stations in that format, nothing has changed.

What this HAS done is made the streaming of local radio less interesting. At one time, you could hear a wide range of local talent by streaming out of market stations. Now some of those talents are available on your own local station. So there's less need to stream for certain talent. That's a bad thing for radio companies looking to build their streaming business on their owned talent. So as Entercom pushes their Radio.com app, why bother if you can hear that same talent on your local station?

So what we're seeing less of a nationalization of talent and more of an internalization of talent. In a way its similar to how Apple or Google try to keep you in their product universe. But if you're not in their culture, you don't know it exists. In this way, it's less likely that there ever will be someone like Casey Kasem or Larry King ever again. Because no one else will ever be that cross-genre, cross company, cross-market kind of personality.

But there is a difference between discreet and individual syndicated shows which are, for the most part, run "as is" with local ads just inserted. A "national" station is an entire 24/7 concept which can have local data inserted in the markets with a station in them, and it will be geozoned in its stream to regionally localize some data and commercials. But it is a single concept with a single identity across the US.

None of the discreet shows has stationality as they are set up to run on stations with different call letter or name identities in different markets. What I envision, and what actually worked for me as long as 55 years ago in a galaxy far, far away, is having the same name and identity in every market, but the ability to insert geozoned spots and certain informational elements without changing the sound no matter where you might be, from Fajardo to Pago Pago.

 

[TheBigA]

What I envision, and what actually worked for me as long as 55 years ago in a galaxy far, far away, is having the same name and identity in every market, but the ability to insert geozoned spots and certain informational elements without changing the sound no matter where you might be, from Fajardo to Pago Pago.

Unless the FCC changes ownership rules to where one company can own stations in every market with no limits, it won't happen. The driving force behind the current "nationalization" is financial. But the reality is there's no motivation for an Alpha station or a Townsquare station to run an Entercom host when they have people within their own company that can do the same thing and they don't have to give up barter spots. So Townsquare does their own 7 to midnight "national" show.

The romance behind "live & local" isn't coming from the radio talent. The ones I've known all want more listeners. They want to expand their reach beyond their home grounds. So when the company comes to them and says their show will now be heard on 20 or 30 more co-owned stations, they don't cry for the talent being fired. They instead see this as a great thing for themselves.

The REAL star here is the music. When you compare the number of Twitter followers of a medium level music star to a "national" radio host, you realize how small a world we live in. The musicians are the real talent. They're not worried about being live and local. They're not limited by ownership. They want to reach a bigger audience. We all could learn from them. They know how to be entertainers.

 

[davideduardo]

Unless the FCC changes ownership rules to where one company can own stations in every market with no limits, it won't happen. The driving force behind the current "nationalization" is financial. But the reality is there's no motivation for an Alpha station or a Townsquare station to run an Entercom host when they have people within their own company that can do the same thing and they don't have to give up barter spots. So Townsquare does their own 7 to midnight "national" show.

The rules do not prohibit owning a station in every one of the top 200 markets... or more. And companies with only partial national coverage can be in every market with the stream.

The stream is the station; the local facilities are kept as long as there is local ad revenue that wants an actual FM station and not just a localization of the stream. That, too, will end.

The REAL star here is the music. When you compare the number of Twitter followers of a medium level music star to a "national" radio host, you realize how small a world we live in. The musicians are the real talent. They're not worried about being live and local. They're not limited by ownership. They want to reach a bigger audience. We all could learn from them. They know how to be entertainers.

And that is why shows like Seacrest and Bobby Bones and Charlemagne and the like can be so big as they have constant access to all the big names in their repertoire, while Bill Smith in Fargo does not. But they are still shows, not full concept national music stations.

 

[TheBigA]

The rules do not prohibit owning a station in every one of the top 200 markets... or more.

But for this to work, they need to own more than one station in every market, and they have to own one station in every format in every market. Because, once again, there's no motivation for iHeart to carry an Entercom host on one of their stations.

 

[b-turner]

It seems to me critics of national-based programs tend to forget they were fans of national shows they had no issue with. Howard Stern, Paul Harvey, George Noory, Rush and others seem to be fine with everyone. If you recall Z Rock, it was satellite fed but listeners thought it was local. Nobody claims these 'national' programs are destroying radio. And they didn't or don't.

What we have in technology is the best of both worlds: we have a stable of top talent that can produce elements that can be utilized to create dayparts with top notch talent and local inserts to create a show that satisfies both sides. One has only to look at programs like Delilah where the music can be fine tuned to the affiliate.

With radio facing dwindling income, this is not only cost effective but does not sacrifice quality.

American radio may never reach the 'national' appeal radio in other nations enjoy but we can enjoy the best of both worlds with a business model that makes sense for radio. Perhaps it is the right compromise for a very diverse nation where California is different from New York and how different the Upper Peninsula of Michigan is from the Rio Grande Valley of Texas. For every difference there can be that regional or local content that mingles with the national talent for a mix that is right for that region.

Great article, David.

 

[davideduardo]

But for this to work, they need to own more than one station in every market, and they have to own one station in every format in every market. Because, once again, there's no motivation for iHeart to carry an Entercom host on one of their stations.

I don't think they need land stations everywhere as the national format is the stream, the locals are temporary ways to preserve investments and revenue streams as more and more listening moves to the web. The land stations are residual remnants of a fading technology.

The significant difference is that the stations have to all have the same name, logo, imaging to mirror the national stream.

On the other hand, smaller groups or stations may find it profitable to associate with such an entity just the way they did with SMN and other satellite services.

 

[davideduardo]

American radio may never reach the 'national' appeal radio in other nations enjoy but we can enjoy the best of both worlds with a business model that makes sense for radio. Perhaps it is the right compromise for a very diverse nation where California is different from New York and how different the Upper Peninsula of Michigan is from the Rio Grande Valley of Texas. For every difference there can be that regional or local content that mingles with the national talent for a mix that is right for that region.

BigA made a good point several posts back: the real stars of music radio are the artists.

So a national radio format with talent that is able to invite the artists in for a segment... or who can call them on the phone and get an answer... or get them to guest host or premier a song is going to be better than a local show in a smaller market who is reading stuff of artist's websites.

In any format, there is only room for one or two national formats in each music genre or the artists will simply shut them all off.

One good thing is that stations that can do local or regional music research can add their own playlists to those networks and have their stream geolocated in their area. Our technology allows for much greater flexibility by city and region that was not possible with the later 80's and 90's satellite radio formats that were totally rigid.

 

[TheBigA]

So a national radio format with talent that is able to invite the artists in for a segment... or who can call them on the phone and get an answer... or get them to guest host or premier a song is going to be better than a local show in a smaller market who is reading stuff of artist's websites.

Maybe. We'll see. Because that's what Entercom is doing. Their "national" mid-day show has an hour that is "co-hosted" by an artist. The artist plays guest DJ. The bad news, as I see it, is that adds more talk to the mid-days, where it used to be more music intensive. Making it worse is these shows likely aren't going to be able to edit these guest DJ slots to make them concise. We know that PPM can be unforgiving to rambling talk.

Is this the best daypart for that kind of foreground entertainment? I don't know. I'll be looking at the numbers to see if the listeners really want artists talking in mid-day.

 

[TheBigA]

On the other hand, smaller groups or stations may find it profitable to associate with such an entity just the way they did with SMN and other satellite services.

I don't know. Have you been reading about the Independent Broadcasters Association? They don't want to put money in anyone else's pocket.

Here's what they say about that:

Premiere, WWI and other networks have access to your inventory through barter agreements and enjoy the cash benefits of your inventory.

 

[davideduardo]

I don't know. Have you been reading about the Independent Broadcasters Association? They don't want to put money in anyone else's pocket.

When they find that the shows they try to create don't generate the level of artist and entertainment engagement, that aspect of the group will die. They do have a good idea in developing a separate national rep and lobbying for smaller radio stations, not TV and big groups.

This reminds me of Gabbert's NAFMB back quite a few decades...

 

[fybush]

David, I'm a little puzzled that neither your column nor any of the replies here seem to acknowledge the VERY successful example of a national network that's doing everything you're talking about, right here in the US, from a home base in northern California and now on FM signals in nearly every market across the country (with the notable exceptions so far of Houston, Dallas, Orlando and Tampa, but maybe not for much longer.)

 

[davideduardo]

David, I'm a little puzzled that neither your column nor any of the replies here seem to acknowledge the VERY successful example of a national network that's doing everything you're talking about, right here in the US, from a home base in northern California and now on FM signals in nearly every market across the country (with the notable exceptions so far of Houston, Dallas, Orlando and Tampa, but maybe not for much longer.)

That one is obvious, but in an article aimed at commercial broadcasters, using a listener supported station net would cause readers to fail to consider the potential for ad-supported radio, particularly since many broadcasters do not like or particularly respect EMF.

Similarly, I would not mention the CBC, BBC, or any of the other well known government national networks.

I'd use Cherie, NRJ or Nostalgie in France as excellent examples, or Los 40 in Spain. Commercial, long established, national, and with online brand extensions. Nostalgie has about 40 sub-streams with specific alternatives to the gold concept, right down to specific artist channels that are a lot like the US satellite channels that feature an artist for a while.

I avoided mentioning Latin American webs for the same reason: there is a tendency to discount anything from that area of the globe as being "primitive". Yet right now I'm on hold to help develop a national station in one South American nation considered even backwards; it's going to have nearly 80 transmitters linked by satellite covering 95% of the nation's population with a single air studio in the country's commercial center. And the satellite will deliver web content to local ISPs where it can be customized for each market or region of the country in a profit-sharing deal.

I mention that project because it is the idea of a non-broadcaster who does not have habits, customs and 100 years worth of history entangling her. She is a user of media, who is in a position to create a new model that fits the way she consumes radio and which reflects as well the patterns of people in her generation. It's not going to be done the way a seasoned broadcaster would do it, and I'm finding her perspective to be enlightening.

 

[vchimpanzee]

When I think of radio during the Depression, I think of national shows, not local stations. Jack Benny, Burns & Allen, Edgar Bergen and "Amos and Andy".

 

[TheBigA]

That one is obvious, but in an article aimed at commercial broadcasters, using a listener supported station net would cause readers to fail to consider the potential for ad-supported radio, particularly since many broadcasters do not like or particularly respect EMF.

But you also skipped over all of the taped syndication that existed in the 60s and 70s. I've estimated about 20% of all radio during that time utilized some form of syndicated formats from a half dozen companies. Most of them used national voices (although some allowed local hosts). By the 80s, they switched to satellite. This was a huge profitable business, and continues to this day. Last week, I read an article summarizing the variety of daily content syndication for radio coming from United Stations, Sun Broadcast Group, and SkyView, to name a few.

 

[xmtrland]

Syndicator BPI was very popular in small and medium markets in the 70's and early 80's. BPI allowed stations to mix local with host that was heard in several markets across the USA. From what I remember BPI host did not mix alot of national stories/content in their segments at least when they were tape delivery. BPI did migrated from Tapes to Satellite delivery.

 

[TheBigA]

Syndicator BPI was very popular in small and medium markets in the 70's and early 80's.

You may be thinking of BPS, which was Bonneville Programming Services, a division of Bonneville International. Bonneville allowed for local hosts, and their biggest outlet was WRFM in NYC. BPI was Broadcast Programming Inc, a company that emerged in the 80s and is now part of Cumulus. I think BPI was based in Seattle, and created Delilah.

But there were several national radio programing syndicators in the 60s, including Schulke, Century, and Peters. By the late 60s, Drake Chenault got in the business.

 

[CTListener]

You may be thinking of BPS, which was Bonneville Programming Services, a division of Bonneville International. Bonneville allowed for local hosts, and their biggest outlet was WRFM in NYC. BPI was Broadcast Programming Inc, a company that emerged in the 80s and is now part of Cumulus. I think BPI was based in Seattle, and created Delilah.

But there were several national radio programing syndicators in the 60s, including Schulke, Century, and Peters. By the late 60s, Drake Chenault got in the business.

In the mid-'70s, I recall hearing a very distinctive-sounding canned format on both WCGY Lawrence/Boston and WKFM Fulton/Syracuse. It consisted on songs played in pairs with a jingle between them, one gold and the other current, with a bland, generic announcer back-announcing after the second song using this template: "That was Billy Swan and 'I Can Help,' and before that, Elton John, 'Your Song.' " Whose format was that, and did it have many users in its day besides the two I personally was exposed to?

 

[Mikey Radio]

Maybe I'm missing the overall point of the article, but it raises several questions/points in my mind:
- Why consider national radio and creating/installing technology that switches the tuner in your car to the stations airing their programming as mentioned in this article, when one can simply switch on SiriusXM and enjoy seamless reception wherever they drive or travel and it's technology that's already in place?
- Many of the countries referenced are MUCH smaller than the USA by both population and physical size. Is this really as practical here?
- It's my opinion that many people really prefer radio that's live and local. It's been at least a few decades since I've seriously listened to a syndicated morning show, for instance. Why? Because while I want to be entertained and informed, I also want to hear about stuff that's relatable to me. The local sports teams, impact of recent weather events in the immediate area, information about local politics, excitement about upcoming events here and then to hear a recap once the local radio staff have attended them.
- Most importantly, I still want radio as a source of localized information and in some cases, guidance and help. I wrote a commentary for Radio World about 15 years ago when I was visiting some relatives in a smaller radio market outside of Pittsburgh. There was a horrible weather event that resulted in damaged roads, fallen trees and widespread losses of power. I switched on the radio and went up and down the AM and FM dials: Not a single station was airing information or trying to give helpful details or even taking calls from people who were affected or who were out on the roadways and could possibly give updates on closures and conditions. The only thing on the radio that night were radio shows like Delilah and stations airing computer or satellite formatted music, or networked talk shows and news programs. That's NOT what radio is supposed to be IMO.