Most of the ones I've run into seem to depend upon TMZ as their source of material. Immaterial, boring and generally just junk.
-
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
Deeper Issues?
- Thread starter SirRoxalot
- Start date
And that is a totally inaccurate analysis and solution. Consolidation came due to the proliferation of FCC licenses where less than half of all stations were profitable, causing a need for combined offices, management, engineering, etc. That's toothpaste you can't put back into the tube.
Radio attracts 18-24's quite well. The new reality is that there is more competing with radio, from video games to streaming. But radio continues to reach about 90% of that group each week.
Consolidation has brought improvements. When I started in radio, in my market only the AMs got ratings, and of 8 AMs there were 3 formats: MOR, Top 40 and R&B. There were 3 MORs, 3 Top 40 stations and two R&B ones. Now, in that market, including of course the FMs, there are more than a dozen distinguishable formats. That is because a cluster can include both high performance formats and more niche ones as they predominantly sell packages, not just one station.
And that is just one example.
Radio goes through changes. I began when an FM was worthless (and that is why they hired a 13 year-old). AMs had to do one of just a couple of formats available. 8 years later, I owned a larger market FM that got big ratings and had the highest rates in town. Change. We adapted to it.
Ten years later, in a market where FM amounted to less than 10 total shares, one FM changed format and got as high as a 42 share and permanently moved the majority to that band. Another change. All the other stations adapted to it.
We've been through all of that, and are mostly prepared for further change. And no, it won't be the same. It never has been.
I've only seen Seacrest on TV, never heard his radio shows but, to me, he's a nice guy but boring. I am not interested in his description of his latest girlfriend or what his weekend was like. No way he's "must see TV" or radio.
I don't think I've EVER said there's nothing wrong. But I don't buy the negative stereotype you're selling. You obviously had a bad experience. OK, so have a lot of people. I'm not one of them. But at the same time, I feel a bad attitude isn't productive. You're not going to fix anything by being a complainer. My approach is to lead by example.
The things I see that are wrong are radio stations still acting like it's the 70s. I have no patience for local DJs who lock themselves in the studio and refuse to do outreach. If you're local talent, you should spend time in the community, and meet listeners. If you're locked in the studio, we might as well run someone from another city.
Why is it a one or the other thing? The small broadcasters are the ones who aren't investing in new technology. They just plod along as though it's the 70s. The small stations can't afford to give their employees good benefits. The bigger companies invest in the best technology and the best talent. That's why they're getting the best ratings. Take a look at the Top 5 stations in your city. Who owns them? Has "massive consolidation done wonders?" No. But in all my years, the check never bounced.
The fact is you can't squeeze the toothpaste back in the tube. The government won't reverse the ownership rules. The other thing is that all the growth right now is in digital. So that's where the investment will be.
Not my experience. Depends on the station.
Again, Seacreast is a good example where he has the contacts, influence and personality to attract unique material to his show. Same with Bobby Bones and Charlamaigne Da God and others.
What we are seeing is that most morning shows work where the hosts are connected to the entertainment business. A local guy or lady in a small market can't do that, and they should not be trying to do it by taking stuff from TMZ.
You are way out of his demo, and the wrong gender.
The problem is that your taste and age put you outside the target of all but a couple of radio stations in the whole country. We are not programming to you because there is no money in it.
Of course, you are in a market where there are actually several stations "for you"... the Lumberyard and Sebastian's new effort. Neither has yet proven economic success, but it is interesting to watch whether in a market that big there is a niche for a 55+ station.
Yet he was getting 20 shares in NYC at one point, and that meant that he was getting the vast majority of the youth audience... and what was left spilled over to one of the other nearly identically programmed Top 40 stations. So what you are saying is that you have always been a contrarian. Radio does not program to contrarians.
What do they all have in common? They all have a big platform. The big stars simply won't talk to a local DJ in Missoula. They will talk to DJs who bring an audience. That's what those people have. So the star knows that what they say will have an impact and will reach their fans. That's what it's all about. Fifty years ago, the stars didn't do social media, and DJs were the connection between the people and the stars. Now, the stars can go directly to their fans. It doesn't leave much for a local DJ to say, except what they've seen on social media. But the national DJs have direct access to the celebrities. That's a marketable commodity.
Up the thread a few posts, I pointed out that it wasn't that radio wasn't changing. It's that radio didn't change fast enough. Y'all seem to have missed that, and think I've been arguing for "going back to the way things were."
I'm not. My position is (and has been) that the horse has already left the barn. Back in the mid 90s, I remember this morning show guy in Dallas I knew (his show is still on the air despite him being dead for years) saying that what was then "online radio" would eat our lunch if we weren't careful.
He was right. His timing was a bit off, but he was right.
Absolutely, and there's NOTHING we can do that will change that. Nothing. All we can do is put our product on the same platform and compete there. That's it. People aren't going to throw away their computers and cell phones and replace them with transistor radios. As you said, that horse has left the barn. This is why iHeart, Audacy, and other companies are investing in digital content and platforms. That's the new frontier. There are no limits. It's very exciting.
Wow. I had a great experience, but then it ended. You are falling all over yourself to paint me as this bitter old guy who has a bad attitude.
I have the perspective of someone who is no longer in the business. I'm not being a complainer. I'm looking at it from outside. It doesn't look pretty.
You seem to want ME to find fault with my meal ticket. You're not going to get that from me. I eat very well.
It doesn't look pretty because your view is colored by negative stereotypes. I read that kind of thing here a lot.
You believe young people aren't interested in radio, and radio doesn't invest in it's product. I don't see it that way.
And the "fun fact" is that we are back to the Golden Age of radio where everything important was done on either wide-coverage signals (The Opry, the Lousiana Hayride or the WLS Barn Dance, for example) or national networks. They had access to the talent and the regional or national coverage.
The U.S., for some reason, has resisted national programming ever since TV took over the job of the national networks. In other countries, unimpeded by restrictive 7-station of a kind ownership limits, national webs have been the standard for decades. We are just catching up now.
Actually? Yes.
Part of my post-radio career is to be analytical. To look at something we're doing at my "meal ticket" and say "is there a better way to do this?" I push the tech, and when something goes wrong I analyze where the problem occurred and confer with the engineers to make it better.
Granted, I'm working with specific systems and their behaviors, but analyzing potential weaknesses in any system isn't a bad idea. I used to do it all the time when I was in radio. What is it that we're doing wrong? Where did the breakdown occur? How can it be improved moving forward?
Is it wrong for you to look at your meal ticket and seek potential faults? Is it wrong for you to be big enough to say "maybe we're doing it wrong" and look for a better path forward? More important to the discussion at hand, is it wrong for you to acknowledge that mistakes were made in the past? My answers to these questions would be "no," but your mileage may vary.
Yes, I believe young people are not interested in radio. I'm willing to bet that if I said the name "Audacy" among my younger co-workers they'd look at me the same way they do if I'd referenced the telegraph. I believe that for them, the thing in the center of their car's dash is not a "radio," but rather a device to connect their phone to so they can stream music.
Yes, the horse has left the barn, and the radio industry is standing outside the barn looking at the horse in the distance and saying "we'd better start walking in that direction."
That's a stupid example. That name didn't exist 6 months ago. Young people don't have an attachment to radio like people 50 years ago. But they use radio even if they don't know they are. I've seen polls where people say they don't listen to radio, but they listen to Steve Harvey or Bobby Bones. They know the talent, they know the format, they don't know it's radio. That's not our problem. All we care about is they use the content. They show up in the ratings, so we know they're there. Regardless what your anecdotal research says.
Did you miss the part where I said people aren't throwing away their computers and cell phones and replacing them with transistors? Read that post again.
BTW the problems you're talking about are not limited to radio. Television is in the same boat. Viewership of traditional TV is a fraction of what it was ten years ago. In addition, theater attendance is way down. So a lot of things people once did are no longer popular.
When I do, I do it in house, where I can fix it. I don't need to talk about it on a computer message board. I can fix it myself.
And any existing business that is not totally failed has to be evolutionary, not revolutionary.
Of course, I have to say again that there is no current road to profitability with ad sponsored music streaming. We have to support the revenue stream while new alternatives are developed
Last edited:
Actually, this is a perfect example of what's wrong. The creative geniuses (I'm being sarcastic) at Entercom figured the problem with their business was the name, so they launched the Audacy brand.
Apparently, you very much do need to talk about it on a computer message board. We're 7 pages deep into this thread, and you're still talking. Tell you what...I'll bow out here and wish you a good night.
If you mean the "Kardashian" demo and meaningless TMZ prattle then yes.
We've been over this countless times and yes, radio in general doesn't pander to me. But my musical tastes haven't changed significantly since I began listening to RnR/Pop in the mid-50's. I bailed in the mid 80's when pop music fell off the deep end. I used to listen (in my distant youth) to people like Paul Harvey, Arthur Godfrey and a whole host of people who have been gone a long time. I would still be listening to them were they still on the air.
And thank goodness for both of them. My main listening is the Lumberyard (on the HD translator) but I have also spent some time with Sebastian too. My guess is that the majority of radio listening senior females spend their time on KEZ and the males on KSLX or one of the Oldie or Country outlets. To be honest I don't hear much noise emanating from house or car these days. Just very loud and distorted hip-hop/rap (which doesn't seem to be sourced from an OTA radio station).
- Status