Alt 92.3

[TheBigA]

1. Other than Jack formats, playlists have universally tightened.
2. Stations nearly uniformly sound like juke boxes.
3. Nationwide voicetracking is happening seemingly everywhere, and some dayparts within some companies have become nationalized.
4. There's less local control of musical content.

Those things are being done because they get positive results. In NYC there are lots of live and local DJs. Live DJs with local control of playlists isn't helping WNYL, and that's what this thread is supposed to be about.

And I am not the only one who doesn't like this. Revenue is down. Listenership is down. Many people agree.

That's OK. They can pay for radio or give up their personal information if they prefer. There is no constitutional right to free radio. Radio stations are doing whatever it takes to drive revenue and increase listenership. The way to increase revenue is add more commercials. But listeners don't want more commercials, so that limits opportunity for revenue.

When revenue is down, creativity is needed to fix the revenue problem.

When revenue is down, you can either raise the rates or add more commercials. That's about it. Listenership has topped out.

What you consider "creativity" won't fix revenue unless you can charge listeners directly for what they hear. That's what public radio does. You want creativity? Listen to public radio.

 

[Least]

We have argued this ad nauseum in the past, but I would like to respond. Most markets have 1-3 radio companies, and most of the top 100 markets are dominated by iHeart and/or Audacy. Can you provide evidence that these "hundreds of radio companies" are "doing different things?" I see no evidence. This is what I see:
1. Other than Jack formats, playlists have universally tightened.
2. Stations nearly uniformly sound like juke boxes.
3. Nationwide voicetracking is happening seemingly everywhere, and some dayparts within some companies have become nationalized.
4. There's less local control of musical content.

And I am not the only one who doesn't like this. Revenue is down. Listenership is down. Many people agree.

What new ideas have been tried in the last three years? I can't think of any new ideas other than doubling down on what does not work. What content has been created in order to provide a compelling reason to choose radio over other forms of media?

When revenue is down, creativity is needed to fix the revenue problem. Doubling down could cause radio to disappear; eventually, revenue could decline even more. I am not talking about diversifying; that is a must. I am talking about radio itself.

And one more thing: Gaining more listeners, by definition, should increase advertiser interest. That should bring more revenue. But it is not happening.

Much niche formats aren't tested in New York, Los Angeles, or Chicago. They are tested in smaller markets. And where Audacy and iHeart have a large presence in many markets, there are other companies across the country. I was just outside Long Island in Southern Connecticut, last weekend. I was just on the fringe of WMQR Hartford (Radio 104.1) who was doing a 90s alt-rock weekend. As my wife and I had a nostalgia trip of our youth, we enjoyed the programming while driving back home. That was until we crossed into WWBX's signal and Mix 104.1 in Boston came in. Went from Nirvana's "Man Who Sold the World" to Carrie Underwood's "Before He Cheats," mid-song (much to my ire 😆). It felt like losing WBCN all over again! 🤣

I looked up WMQR to find our where I could stream them if I felt inclined to do so, and I never even heard of their owner. As for the formats, I agree that big city radio is virtually the same things. My favorite types of music are Rock, Rap, Alternative, Jazz, and The Blues. In Boston, I get Hip-Hop and Classic Rock, commercially. Luckily enough, college radio covers Alternative, here. If not, we have an online only unofficial successor to our old locally owned Alternative station. But if you were to even take a virtual tour of what is out there, around the country, you would find that even the same format in New York isn't exactly the same in Boston, nor is it the same in Denver or Atlanta or San Diego. There are niche stations out there, and commercial stations who handle the format different than what we usually see in our home markets. For modern Rock, I have WGIR-FM out of Manchester, NH. Compare it to WNNH which is a 30 minute drive further north, and the two stations are simular, yet quite different. For the record, I prefer WNNH, but live just too far south to get it on my radio. Really take a look before making such a declaration.

 

[CTListener]

WMRQ (the correct call) is run by a small regional operator that goes by two names: Full Power Radio and Red Wolf Broadcasting. The owner is John Fuller, and its other Hartford area stations are WDRC-FM, a by-the-books classic rocker, and WNTY, an AM with an FM repeater with a tight-playlist classic hits format that's also heard in Springfield, Mass., and Westerly, R.I., on similar AM/FM setups.

Also, don't forget that weekend programming is basically a throw-away when it comes to radio's business end. WMRQ isn't a daring Alt station at all during its revenue producing hours.

 

[Least]

What you consider "creativity" won't fix revenue unless you can charge listeners directly for what they hear. That's what public radio does. You want creativity? Listen to public radio.

I get where you're going with this, but I have to slightly push back at observing your statement as absolute.

Where I agree with you is that listenership has topped out. The only way for that to change is to change to something different or interest in Alternative to suddenly grow. Perhaps some artist or band shifts the interest of the current young generation. In most scenarios, that isn't going to happen.

Where I push back is that creativity not fixing revenue. As Scott is saying, in the past we've seen stations take chances with shows that just don't gain listeners. But rarely, there is a Howard Stern who does something different, and it draws in an audience which results in growing revenue.

I only push back, yet not fully disagree; because realistically, how many personalities to the caliber of Howard Stern are going to come along? In most to near all occasions, you're right. I'm just not as completely dismissive, because of that.

 

[Least]

WMRQ (the correct call) is run by a small regional operator that goes by two names: Full Power Radio and Red Wolf Broadcasting. The owner is John Fuller, and its other Hartford area stations are WDRC-FM, a by-the-books classic rocker, and WNTY, an AM with an FM repeater with a tight-playlist classic hits format that's also heard in Springfield, Mass., and Westerly, R.I., on similar AM/FM setups.

Also, don't forget that weekend programming is basically a throw-away when it comes to radio's business end. WMRQ isn't a daring Alt station at all during its revenue producing hours.

Sorry for messing up the calls.

You're missing my point that stations out there do try things. Scott basically announced in the Top 100 markets there were three owners who do exactly the same thing. And, by a string a chance, that throw away over-night or weekend programming is a hit, that's when stations shift formats. I'm going back to 1968 and WBCN, which is way out of reasonable reference; but, there are stations who will do throw away programming in off peak time, just to find out that they have something. I know I've read it before, but cannot cite another station off the top of my head.

 

[TheBigA]

I only push back, yet not fully disagree; because realistically, how many personalities to the caliber of Howard Stern are going to come along? In most to near all occasions, you're right. I'm just not as completely dismissive, because of that.

When one comes around, they take their talent to podcasting, where they can keep all the money. And keep in mind that Howard's real fame came when he left WNBC and moved to WXRK as primarily a talk show host. You're not likely to see a music radio DJ rise to fame again. It's not what music radio is about any more. The entire discussion when talking about music radio is about the music. It's not a recent phenomenon.

 

[Delete My Account]

But talk radio is in a challenging position too. Most talk stations have locked themselves into an ideology and a sensibility that doesn't appeal to a broader audience. So that format has some equally tough decisions to make and isn't developing a ton of new viable talents. Even talk isn't "about" what it used to be about. Which is fine, as long as it remains a viable product - but how much longer will it?

 

[davideduardo]

We have argued this ad nauseum in the past, but I would like to respond. Most markets have 1-3 radio companies, and most of the top 100 markets are dominated by iHeart and/or Audacy. Can you provide evidence that these "hundreds of radio companies" are "doing different things?" I see no evidence. This is what I see:

And there are plenty of markets with strong Cumulus, Townsquare, Urban One, SBS, Univision, Saga, Salem, Beasley, Hubbard and many others.

1. Other than Jack formats, playlists have universally tightened.

I have not seen a change in playlist size by format for the last 30 to 40 years.

2. Stations nearly uniformly sound like juke boxes.

Because research shows that, outside of mornings in most formats, listeners don’t want personality radio.

3. Nationwide voicetracking is happening seemingly everywhere, and some dayparts within some companies have become nationalized.

In most of the world national music, national music networks are the norm. Extreme limits on ownership in the US based on 1930’s politician fears is to blame.

4. There's less local control of musical content

Blame the Internet: national streams tend to standardize playlists in every market.

And I am not the only one who doesn't like this. Revenue is down. Listenership is down. Many people agree.

Revenue is down mostly due to the pandemic. Listenership was down due to fewer pandemic commuter#. Both have recovered and 2021º may report higher revenue than 2019.

What new ideas have been tried in the last three years? I can't think of any new ideas other than doubling down on what does not work. What content has been created in order to provide a compelling reason to choose radio over other forms of media

New formats are mostly the product of fragmentation due to more stations. That’s why the 70’s gave us lots of new ones as FM developed. Otherwise, changes are evolutionary and not revolutionary. .

 

[Least]

But talk radio is in a challenging position too. Most talk stations have locked themselves into an ideology and a sensibility that doesn't appeal to a broader audience. So that format has some equally tough decisions to make and isn't developing a ton of new viable talents. Even talk isn't "about" what it used to be about. Which is fine, as long as it remains a viable product - but how much longer will it?

Be sure to specify which kind of talk. Right now, Sports Talk does well in bigger markets, so long as they also have rights to teams in the market. Most markets can sustain a single Sports Talk stations, while some even can support two financially. I stress financially as ratings usually differ depending on time of year (which sport is playing), how the team is performing, and who is on during the day. Boston is that example, where we have WBZ-FM and WEEI-FM. WBZ tends to perform better having the Patriots, Bruins, and Celtics; as well as having more listened to daytime shows. WEEI has the Red Sox and their shows do bring in money, despite not having nearly as strong of ratings as WBZ.

I would put Sports Talk in a separate bucket than conservative talk. Then general talk stations (like the old Free FM), I would classify under exactly what you are saying.

 

[Least]

Because research shows that, outside of mornings in most formats, listeners don’t want personality radio.

Anecdotally, I have to agree from what I see in my home market. Stations have tried some afternoon shows over the years and all fail within a couple of years. The last strong afternoon show, Toucher and Rich was taken off afternoons after a couple of years and moved to mornings, replacing Opie and Anthony.

 

[TheBigA]

ScottBurns said:
4. There's less local control of musical content

Blame the Internet: national streams tend to standardize playlists in every market.

A reminder that the national music charts (Billboard and Mediabase) require their station reporters to have local control of music playlists. It is not in the interest of the charts to have local reporters if those reporters are simply using playlists created in the home office. Companies have strategies (as Audacy does with the Alt format), but their local stations are required to each have local music directors, who create local playlists, and take music calls from record labels. In every case when iHeart or Cumulus attempted to do national playlists, those stations were dropped as chart reporters. Subsequently those radio companies reverted to local music directors because they couldn't afford to lose their role as chart reporters.

 

[Jeffrey]

Also, don't forget that weekend programming is basically a throw-away when it comes to radio's business end. WMRQ isn't a daring Alt station at all during its revenue producing hours.

Exactly the reason radio is SO much more enjoyable to listen to than on any weekday

 

[Jeffrey]

Who would pay for it? What radio companies are doing now is what gets them the most listeners. You may find it boring, but they do it because it works.

Outside the box thinking works in non-commercial radio. The catch is the listeners have to be willing to subscribe.

Many find commercial radio boring. What they're doing now doesn't work because it doesn't attract as many as it could. I don't know anyone that listens to commercial radio. You may have all the reasons in the world why commercial radio does what it does and why it works for what it is but that's closed minded. Without innovation and thinking outside the box new technology will kill terrestrial radio all together eventually and rightly so. Commercial radio has done little to keep up with technology and competition.

 

[TheBigA]

Without innovation and thinking outside the box new technology will kill terrestrial radio all together eventually and rightly so. Commercial radio has done little to keep up with technology and competition.

Not true. Both iHeart and Audacy have their own streaming platforms. The others are available on TuneIn. All radio companies are doing podcasts and other online content. What "new technology" would you suggest?

 

[Jeffrey]

Not true. Both iHeart and Audacy have their own streaming platforms. The others are available on TuneIn. All radio companies are doing podcasts and other online content. What "new technology" would you suggest?

I was talking about terrestrial radio not what owners are doing with online platforms.
Without more innovation it's a matter of time

 

[John Waywoods]

Oh heck. I will say it: radio is about the personality that goes with the program. Card readers are a major turnoff. Audiences relate to on air talent when allowed to let their personalities shine.

 

[TheBigA]

I was talking about terrestrial radio not what owners are doing with online platforms.
Without more innovation it's a matter of time

Terrestrial radio stations don't own the frequencies they're on. They are merely licensees. The AM & FM bands are owned by the American people, regulated by the FCC as a public resource. If it all goes away, that's the government's problem.

Radio companies own their online platforms.

 

[TheBigA]

Oh heck. I will say it: radio is about the personality that goes with the program. Card readers are a major turnoff. Audiences relate to on air talent when allowed to let their personalities shine.

That may be for you, but for most people who listen to music radio, the main attraction is the music. The DJ is an interruption.

Talk & sports radio is all about personality. Anyone who has talent in that area works in talk or sports, not music.

 

[davideduardo]

Many find commercial radio boring. What they're doing now doesn't work because it doesn't attract as many as it could. I don't know anyone that listens to commercial radio.

"Many" is an exaggeration. And it is also a relative term: compared to what?

There have always been "some" adults who don't use AM or FM, commercial or not. At the peak of radio usage, about 6% to 7% of people did not listen at all during a survey week. Today, it's around 10% to 12% who do not use radio.

That means that 88% to 90% of people in the country use radio at least a little in the course of a week.

Probably the 10% who don't listen are all your friends.

Oh, and back when the figure was around 6%, more than half, when surveyed, did not listen due to thinks like a family emergency, illness, a job that did not allow at-work listening, etc.

You may have all the reasons in the world why commercial radio does what it does and why it works for what it is but that's closed minded.

When radio, within the confines of being a "free access to anyone" medium, does anything, it is based on either research or emulation of research findings by other stations.

Broadcasters have tried lots of options. Like any consumer product, a significant number fail even if well researched...

Without innovation and thinking outside the box new technology will kill terrestrial radio all together eventually and rightly so. Commercial radio has done little to keep up with technology and competition.

New tech has a different challenge: unless use of an audio product is subscription based, it is nearly impossible to make money. Over the air, free, radio has to depend on advertisers and not subscribers. So programming is limited to content that appeals to the needs, age and ethnic targets and other requirements of clients and sponsors.

Ad agencies don't have a lot of time time to listen to stations present their "new" format. US radio gets a smaller share of ad budgets in the US than anywhere else in the developed and developing world. That's because, for example, in France an agency can buy three or four targeted national stations that appeal to a client's marketing needs, and be done with it. That's because in much of the world, a single station is national, being on dozens if not hundreds of repeaters all across a country. The US radio industry is so fragmented that it is very hard for agencies to buy.

 

[John Waywoods]

That may be for you, but for most people who listen to music radio, the main attraction is the music. The DJ is an interruption.

Talk & sports radio is all about personality. Anyone who has talent in that area works in talk or sports, not music.

So, if what you say is true, then Music Choice is the number one music app.. however, it is not.