New Audacy CHR lineups

[TexasTom]

Neither of those is live & local talent. All of these stations have a combination of local talent, syndication, and VT. And they get great ratings. Why should they hire more local staff? How does more local staff equate to more listeners and more money?

I don't know why you're asking me that question, considering that I never made any comments one way or another in that particular debate. All I noted was that the 13 out of the 18 FM stations with the best signals in this market were owned by three companies, which gave them outsized power in the market versus just looking at the total number of signals.

If Audacy (which owns that #1 station) only had stations with crappy signals in the market, it wouldn't much matter what programming they had -- the ratings would still be bad. Conversely, having a good signal doesn't guarantee good ratings, as Audacy demonstrates with the dismal ratings for alternative KVIL 103.7.

 

[TheBigA]

I don't know why you're asking me that question

Because this thread is about how Audacy's new CHR lineup is furthering the "death of radio."

If Audacy has great signals and great programming, then the number of local DJs doesn't matter.

 

[boombox4]

No, the consumer has changed. Thirty years ago, the consumer had no choice. Now they have a choice and they don't care about local DJs. It doesn't matter that the local talent has been there for 40 years or hired last week. The consumer doesn't want to have their music interrupted.

You make excellent points, but the concept of the consumer 'making their own playlist' has been around since the compact cassette and home taping, which dates back to the 1970s at least -- almost 50 years ago. I know it was talked about in radio circles at least as early as the 1980's, when the PD of KISW (in Seattle) told a radio writer that he was competing with the cassette.

Then came the MP3 and file sharing, and MP3 players have been around since the late 1990's. But I think radio was healthier at that time than it is now.

I don't know what the 'solution' is, personally. I don't know if there is a solution. But the "making your own playlist" problem has been around since long before digital, I know that much. So the problem -- it if is a problem, probably lies elsewhere.

PS, I guess I jumped the gun, as you mentioned cassettes in a later post. Woops. My apologies there.

 

[Deus Ex Machiato]

I've been doing radio 44 years and I'm not stopping. I am making good money doing it now and will continue to do so. Obviously Deus Ex Machiato is showing his ignorance of the business.

​

I only did it for 35 years, so I guess I'm just a rank amateur, huh?

I feel like I'm at a convention of salesmen for the Yellow Pages, insisting that their industry is healthy and going in exciting new directions.

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

Only if you define the industry by one specific type of technology. That's simply wrong.

 

[b-turner]

Deus Ex Machiato - I never said you were a rank amateur. Maybe I was lucky because I learned to do radio from behind the mike and from the sales side as well. It has not been easy but I wouldn't give up. It's a far cry from where we were playing records and slinging carts. It is tougher today with all the stations and all the competition for the listener's ears.

If I had to guess, I would say you would prefer to be in radio but the lack of opportunities in your area or life's demands forced you to leave the business. If that is the case, I can imagine how that would feel.

I found a way to evolve and a place where radio is an important part of people's day even if they listen on the app. About 90% still listen to radio on whatever device. Radio and TV are still the best mediums to create website visitation and still get the listener in the brick & mortar store. Where I am is voice-tracked outside morning drive and listeners haven't a clue. We're solidly #1 in all dayparts. We absolutely steal the show in 35+. Listeners have about 50 radio choices here. I'm making good money and having fun.

Radio is far from dead or dying where I am. I can still do a remote and produce hundreds of listeners for a client. I can run a basic schedule and produce results for a client. We still say things that are the subject of water cooler talk. All that stuff you recall from radio's past is very much alive and well here but it's because we work at it.

 

[TheBigA]

You make excellent points, but the concept of the consumer 'making their own playlist' has been around since the compact cassette and home taping, which dates back to the 1970s at least -- almost 50 years ago.

But it became a quantifiable problem for both radio and the music business in the late 80s. For radio, it was quantifiable in TSL. In the music business, it led to the Home Recording Act of 1992 that placed a 2% royalty on blank cassettes. As I said, when consumers (or users in this case) are given a choice, they choose to make their own playlists. This is not a fixable problem in mass media. Mass media is about hub & spoke.

Radio can't address this by hiring more local on air broadcast talent. What Audacy is doing to compete with streaming companies is to operate its own streaming company (which it inherited from CBS). They are adding stations and services to their streaming platform that go beyond just rebroadcasting their terrestrial radio stations. That's partly what this process is about: redistributing resources and staff from a stagnant revenue stream (on air radio) to a growing revenue stream (digital).

Look, I get it. For boomers who grew up with a certain kind of radio, this is terrible. But the people who are in the heart of the 25 to 54 demo didn't grow up with the scarcity of media that their parents had. Multiplicity of media depletes the advertising market. That depresses ad prices. That's why we're seeing such a huge growth in direct subscription content. If consumers pay directly, they're less dependent on the ad market. Its easier to do the subscription model in digital media.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

You make excellent points, but the concept of the consumer 'making their own playlist' has been around since the compact cassette and home taping, which dates back to the 1970s at least -- almost 50 years ago. I know it was talked about in radio circles at least as early as the 1980's, when the PD of KISW (in Seattle) told a radio writer that he was competing with the cassette.

Making your own playlist with cassette recorders was an order of magnitude harder than the modern digital services. Arguably that was true even through the era of MP3 players.

I think there is reasonable debate on both sides about the role personalities should play in radio today.
On one side: A jockless radio station provides no value over a computer generated playlist that one might get from Apple Music, except for the value that listeners might get from the ads. "I need a plumber, and I heard an ad for Smithville Plumbing on Q97."

On the other side, personality radio can be a turnoff, especially if the listener feels they have little in common with the DJ. And today the listeners have an easy alternative to "annoying DJ chatter".

 

[TheBigA]

On the other side, personality radio can be a turnoff, especially if the listener feels they have little in common with the DJ. And today the listeners have an easy alternative to "annoying DJ chatter".

We should be clear that in no case is Audacy creating "jockless" radio stations. All of their formats are hosted. In the CHR case being discussed here, they are sticking with local morning shows in all markets and some local in afternoon drive. They're basing this on a view that I happen to share, that talent is not universal. They're concentrating their attention on building certain talents who can become larger than their specific market. Fifty years ago, that was only attainable by a handful of people, such as Casey Kasem or Dick Clark. Today the opportunities are far greater. It is easier to become Casey or Dick today than it was then, so why wouldn't you want to do that?

 

[wastedtalent23]

Audacy's CHRs are in bad shape, and I understand that changes should be made. I just don't understand the logic behind the decision.

I started at the top and searched for a CHR owned by Audacy in the top 50 that was consistently winning over it's competitor and found NONE. In Sacramento and Milwaukee, they are the only game in town and get their ratings by default, and still, neither station is in the top 5. In all of the other markets they are getting punked by iHeart, Cumulus or someone else.

SOOO....

They fire a couple of dozen people, take two air personalities from B96 in Chicago(where they are #19 in the market and a big disappointment being a heritage station) and spread them thin across all of their other failing stations. Not taking anything away from the personalities themselves, but they will have little knowledge about the other markets, and minimal or no interaction with any of their listeners.

I read an article a couple of weeks ago about iHeart EXPANDING it's CHR airstaff soon, so those that say today's listeners don't care about live and/or local air talent, or air talent in general will see the proof in the pudding. I'd be shocked if we see a trend of Audacy's stations climbing, and iHeart's stations sliding as a result.

 

[davideduardo]

I feel like I'm at a convention of salesmen for the Yellow Pages, insisting that their industry is healthy and going in exciting new directions.

The issue is whether you consider "radio" to be AM and FM, or all sources of audio entertainment sent from an outside source.

To many of us today, "radio" does not limit itself to the old definition. We are in the content creation and distribution business, and don't care what delivery method is employed.

What is the real issue is that nobody has figured out, yet, how to make money from most of the new systems.

• Podcasts can't make economically possible use of music. So they are limited to talk.
• Music streaming needs paid subscribers to be profitable; the "free" services are come-ons for that.
• Media in general is consolidating rapidly as we see in the video world.
• There is uncertainty about future rights payments, copyrights and the like.

So, for the moment, in radio the profitable operations are based on AM and FM still.

 

[TheBigA]

Audacy's CHRs are in bad shape, and I understand that changes should be made.

The CHR format in general is in bad shape. In Los Angeles, the legendary KIIS is being killed by far weaker stations. Same with Z100. Same with Kiss in Chicago. This is not strictly an Audacy problem. It's a music problem.

Not taking anything away from the personalities themselves, but they will have little knowledge about the other markets, and minimal or no interaction with any of their listeners.

You're right that they have little knowledge about other markets, but that's not the point. They're not getting hired for their knowledge of geography, but their ability to become PERSONALITIES. That's what's important. Bru has already proven he can do that on Tik Tok. That's what's important to his audience today. He is a big star, and he's on the radio. That's good for radio, and his company should market and merchandise that fact.

As for interaction, you're wrong. Interaction today happens in social media. It happens on message boards like this one. Do you know anything about me, or I about you? No. Yet we're able to interact and engage in very direct ways. That's what radio people HAVE to do today. The rules of engagement have changed. The experience of the audience has changed. If radio is still operating within the same parameters that existed 50 years ago, it will be left behind. The ONLY way for radio to grow and remain vital in this time of so many options is for it to exist on ALL platforms, not just radio.

 

[davideduardo]

Audacy's CHRs are in bad shape, and I understand that changes should be made. I just don't understand the logic behind the decision.

All CHRs are at a cyclical low. Some blame music production during the pandemic, others call it a cycle we have seen before going back to when the format was called Top 40 and looking at the early 60's as the first example.

I started at the top and searched for a CHR owned by Audacy in the top 50 that was consistently winning over it's competitor and found NONE. In Sacramento and Milwaukee, they are the only game in town and get their ratings by default, and still, neither station is in the top 5. In all of the other markets they are getting punked by iHeart, Cumulus or someone else.

Radio is not a horse race. You can be #6 and still make lots of money.

They fire a couple of dozen people, take two air personalities from B96 in Chicago(where they are #19 in the market and a big disappointment being a heritage station) and spread them thin across all of their other failing stations. Not taking anything away from the personalities themselves, but they will have little knowledge about the other markets, and minimal or no interaction with any of their listeners.

Given that the interaction with listeners in the past was mostly phone-in contests, we are looking at an obsolete practice. How many CHR listeners will use a phone to call a station today in the era of texting and other messaging?

And, for the last 40 years, the target of Top 40 has been 18-34 women, extended to 25-44 in many cases today.

I read an article a couple of weeks ago about iHeart EXPANDING it's CHR airstaff soon, so those that say today's listeners don't care about live and/or local air talent, or air talent in general will see the proof in the pudding. I'd be shocked if we see a trend of Audacy's stations climbing, and iHeart's stations sliding as a result.

The fact is that iHeart is not expanding the talent roster in smaller and medium markets. They are building a team for distribution to all markets. This can be seen in their plan to almost eliminate local studio facilities in most markets to save on rental space... the goal is a hybrid of the European model of national networks.

 

[davideduardo]

Fifty years ago, that was only attainable by a handful of people, such as Casey Kasem or Dick Clark. Today the opportunities are far greater.

The issue 50 years ago was distribution. The costs of live distribution of daily 3 to 4 hour shows back then were mostly prohibitive. Today, any higher bit rate web connection can distribute shows "for free".

AT40 was first distributed on vinyl, and then on CDs until web distribution became practical nearly 30 years after the first show. Dick Clark became known due to network TV, where owned distribution systems made it easier and the economics were different. But any radio shows he syndicated followed the AT40 model.

If distribution is easy, shows that are only picked up by a few stations can be profitable. In the past, unless there was acceptance in nearly all major and medium markets, a show would not succeed. And that applied to not just AT40 but to the King Biscuit Flour Hour and other more specialized shows, to.

 

[TheBigA]

So, for the moment, in radio the profitable operations are based on AM and FM still.

Here's the problem: They may be profitable for us, but they're not profitable for the music business. The music business, especially in CHR, is targeting social media (TikTok) and streaming (Spotify). That's where they're focusing a lot of their promotion and their new releases. Why? Because of the mass audience those platforms deliver, and the mass audience creates royalties that pay labels and artists. That doesn't exist in FM radio. We saw this earlier this year with Olivia Rodrigo. Her big hit was delivered to Spotify, not FM. It was quick, efficient, and productive.

So how does radio compete in this environment? Channeling its national platform. In iHeart's case, their streaming platform is among the largest in the world. Audacy owns its own streaming platform too, but they need to create exclusive content to drive people to it. Radio companies have access to the same national international platforms that Spotify has. They just need to harness that power, and demonstrate to the music industry they can deliver ears and revenue for artists and labels. That's what this is all about. Redirecting resources so radio is a player in the same market with Spotify.

If you're a young fan, you're not attached to your radio the way people were 40 years ago. You're online chatting with your friends, sharing new music, and engaging with the artists directly. You don't need a radio DJ to act as middleman. You can speak directly to your favorite artist on Twitter. So the rules have changed, and radio needs to be in that process somehow. It's not easy, but it's not going to happen if a radio station is only focusing on one market, because the music environment is much bigger.

 

[TheBigA]

And that applied to not just AT40 but to the King Biscuit Flour Hour and other more specialized shows, to.

One of my favorite examples is Dick Clark. He could have been a big star in Philadelphia, but that wasn't enough. He took his local show national, and quickly discovered the power of national media. It made him rich, but it also made him powerful. One of the first things he did with his money was start his own production company. That way he could own his own programs, but also make money with other talent. He then started his own radio syndication company. Both still exist today. As I said, there's no reason why more people can't become the new Dick Clark. Ryan Seacrest is the most obvious example. Bobby Bones is following the Howard Stern example. But in both cases, the foundation is radio. That's where it began. It may not be where they make the most money or get the most fame. But they still devote time to what they do on the radio. Just like Dick Clark.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

You can speak directly to your favorite artist on Twitter. So the rules have changed, and radio needs to be in that process somehow.

It's much harder to claw that kind of influence back once it has been lost. I remember participating on a thread on this site some years ago where someone said radio was important for new music discovery.

If the record labels no longer believe that, that's really game over.

 

[TheBigA]

If the record labels no longer believe that, that's really game over.

They have very short memories. If you can present a good idea, they will listen. But they need to see the numbers. It's all about reaching the most people in an efficient way. Big artists simply don't have the time to engage with local radio stations the way they once did. They'd rather devote that time to social media. It's simply more efficient. So to remain a part of the conversation, you need to deliver big numbers, similar to social media. Bru has shown he can do that.

 

[davideduardo]

They have very short memories. If you can present a good idea, they will listen. But they need to see the numbers. It's all about reaching the most people in an efficient way. Big artists simply don't have the time to engage with local radio stations the way they once did. They'd rather devote that time to social media. So to remain a part of the conversation, you need to deliver big numbers.

The exception being that artists in most genres recognize the value of local radio in cities where they do concerts. With their managers, they still do interviews, do contests or backstages and give away bling and the like. Many still look for local stations to be part of the stage presentation, too.

While social media will get the fan base in most cases, local radio will get the less fanatical fans and interest them in buying tickets.

 

[TheBigA]

The exception being that artists in most genres recognize the value of local radio in cities where they do concerts.

I agree, and the best example is Garth Brooks. He understands the value of radio, and he always finds time for radio.

In fact it's primarily true in the country format, which may be why more country artists are able to sell out football stadiums than any other genre. As Kenny Chesney once said, radio puts butts into seats. He depends on that.