"Anemic" and "arthritic" both might be classified as "ableist" language by people who have neither condition.I'm thinking that the word "anemic" would better describe the show.
-
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
COAST-TO-COAST AM Sounding Arthritic
- Thread starter sdwulfdawg
- Start date
Maybe a “bland” might be a better word.
Or how about: Flaccid? Uninspired? Antiquity?
Word meanings: flaccid actually is a term used to mean not firm in overall health and thought. Unfortunately it means much more to aging males. But this is not a stiff definition.
Last edited:
Point taken. That's how long it's been since there has been a compelling national overnight talk show.
How about "irrepressible" instead? After all, the show is still on the air, when most of its competitors are gone, at least nationally (Ground Zero with Clyde Lewis I think is the only surviving competitor). Noory himself has been carrying the show for roughly 20 years, which is longer than Art Bell did, at least nationally.
Paranormal talk is only down because the internet is chock full of websites about UFO's, conspiracy theories and Paranormal phenomena like ghosts and ESP, and radio is no longer the big deal it once was. It's been replaced in many areas of interest by internet sources.
Paranormal talk is only down because the internet is chock full of websites about UFO's, conspiracy theories and Paranormal phenomena like ghosts and ESP, and radio is no longer the big deal it once was. It's been replaced in many areas of interest by internet sources.
If there were an opportunity to make money at it, I'm sure there would be several. As it's stood for decades now, there is slim to no revenue tied to overnight radio. Advertisers just aren't interested. Especially true when you consider the age of that demo.
And (unfortunately) a lot of the conspiracy/mistrust the government crowd moved on to QAnon/"Deep State"/anti-vaxxing. We really don't need more airtime for that stuff.
Excellent point. We have become a polarized nation as never before and it is hard to be entertaining when so many people take each and every conversation into the swamp...
As many politicians, talk radio, and cable TV channels have discovered: The swamp is actually full of money.
So is the problem AM radio or is it the programming? Younger people used to find late night talk shows on AM stations even if they didn't listen to the station during the day (preferring music elsewhere). Young people are up late - its a prime audience to go after. If the programming is old, anemic and boring then it won't attract them. Much of the radio industry seems in the mode of cutting costs rather than trying to build for the future. The future Rush, Larry King and Art Bell may have been let go a year or two ago and are selling real estate now. I think there is a talent pool out there in the podcast, tik tok and youtube space that radio should look at. Some of these people may want to expand their brand with an evening or overnight talk show and could use their social media platform to promote that. But the iHearts, Audacies, Cumulus, etc. of the world seem to only know about slashing and burning. AM radio - "its on the the way out anyway so let's make it a self fulfilling prophesy by adding more infomercials, more recorded loops of news that is 6 hours old and just drain the last bits of cash out". Just drive the audience away to other media - who cares so long as the execs can keep cashing big checks until they retire.
Everything is a trade-off.
You have a small handful of AM talk stations like KFI that do pretty well in the published 6+ ratings. But they do mediocre to terrible in the "prime age" demos that advertisers desire. KFI could probably figure out some programming on from 10pm to 2am that might appeal to younger listeners more than Coast To Coast, but:
- There is a good chance such programming would not appeal to the older listeners who already prefer the station, causing them to listen less.
- There is nearly no sampling of KFI, or any other AM station, by random chance, by people in their 20s and 30s. That means spending on external advertising to promote this new late evening program to give it any chance of finding an audience.
- As mentioned above, this investment would generate little to no increase in ad dollars, because very little radio revenue is generated after 7pm.
I don't understand the trade-off comment, nor the accusations that night programming is somehow "garbage". As has already been pointed out; now with automation, stations can run the same music as during the day, or re-air talk programming in whatever flavor. Unclear why some of you are wrapped around the axle acting like 24/7 stations are broadcasting white noise or a 1000Hz tone. News flash: Most stations still run night programming. It doesn't make any money though. That's just reality.
Again, I've never heard any station programmer, let alone owner, that would tell any listeners to "buzz-off". Am curious how you arrived at the conclusion that stations do.
Last time I checked; all station owners/mangers/sales managers are desperate for revenue. That's what keeps the lights on, the music/talk/sports playing, and their paychecks-cashing.
KFI runs Coast to Coast overnight. It attracts a particular audience, who has probably been loyal to the show for a very long time. SPT87 proposed running programming at that hour to attract a younger audience.
If you have a formula for keeping all of the C2C listeners, and collecting a younger set of listeners, you should start a consultancy. The News/Talk format could use your guidance, not just for overnights.
If you don't have such a formula, then you understand the trade-off that programmers make on a regular basis.
That wasn't a comment I made.
🤔
That was a hypothetical. Notice the word IF at the start of my sentence.
Additionally, stations tell listeners to buzz off. All the time. In the industry, we euphemize the action as a "format flip."
If things are desperate today, we, as veterans of that industry, should probably start advising high school and college kids not to pursue a career in radio. Are we to that point?
I too don't understand the trade off comment. If stations don't care about the older demos why would they worry if they tuned out? Why not try something new, promote the hell out of it and see how it does. I swear people have forgotten how to promote.
A very wise PD once told me, "When your tired of hearing about a promotion the listener is just getting it". So hit it hard, and just maybe people might stay up to hear it.
A very wise PD once told me, "When your tired of hearing about a promotion the listener is just getting it". So hit it hard, and just maybe people might stay up to hear it.
What's left of that show is primarily on AM stations. Do you really think a younger audience even knows AM exists?
'Hey kids, put down that smartphone and check out this technically and audibly inferior form of radio that mainly caters to old, angry white men, bilking grandma out of her life savings, and conspiracy nuts.' And unfortunately, you'll have to purchase another device other than your smartphone to hear it.
Oh yeah, I'm sure consultants will be able to solve that little challenge.
Saw a study the other day that the majority of GenZ and younger are getting their "news" from TikTok. Not sure what's worse; the programming via Antique Modulation? Or 'influencers' on TikTok telling the kids what they should think. Either way, don't think it's technically considered news.
Programmers already know who's listening to AM. That's why the programming that's there, is there.
Just as when radio and TV were the only games in town, young people have been developing and honing their skills to fit the current and future media landscapes. The difference now is; you don't need to take a single class. Many of the popular stops and artists on TikTok are younger people who recorded their shtick right on their smartphone. Many of these acts some of us find silly or stupid, but that's what youth is consuming.
Most of the original vocational programs dealing with traditional radio and TV training have closed their doors because media consumption is constantly evolving. I find it strange you haven't noticed. Realizing that a lot of folks on this forum appear completely out of touch with the current media landscape, but wow!
Goodness, Kelly. Try reading what I wrote before you spend your energy attacking me for things I did not say. Obviously I don't think that, and I even said so explicitly in the first post you replied to.
Thank you for admitting I was right in post #33. For about 8 seconds, you had my hopes up that you, personally, could save Ancient Modulation.
You could have just said "yes, PT, we should stop guiding kids to careers in radio."
I didn't attack you. I essentially said that anyone who thinks pushing a younger audience to AM would even be possible, is delusional.
Radio isn't hiring kids who are trained to be in radio. They're hiring a younger workforce that knows how to appeal to the next generation of media consumers. That could include content for traditional radio, specialized podcasts, concert and festival promotions, content for apps, or social media production/promotion. Just reading news stories, having a good set of pipes, or talking up to the post, aren't in demand anymore.
I've never claimed that I can turn back time, nor change the habits of media consumers. There's a reason I've been gradually getting out of radio both for employment, and ownership. Haven't invented an equivalent to The Time Tunnel(tm) yet, either.
As I mentioned above, traditional radio has needed to evolve into so much more than just microphones and transmission gear. Smartphones are the go-to consumer device for countless things, including older and younger consumers. (Except some on this board who could be considered Luddites.) Radio companies have evolved into media companies. Those who resist change, do so at their own peril.
The same could be said of what's left of the newspaper industry. Interviewing/reporting and/or writing/editing skills alone just aren't enough. In fact most entry level hires at my old paper now have to have proven multimedia skills, with the emphasis being on video and social media, and bilingual (English and Spanish) applicants have a leg up on the others from the start of the hiring process. Journalism schools are aware of these changes and have modified curriculum accordingly. Sadly, many of the newcomers seem to be weaker in the "old" basic skills than previous generations of newsies, leading me to wonder if those skills have been de-emphasized in college to the point of near-irrelevance.
- Status