2024 Format Change Predictions

[radiofan2023]

As someone who was at KQED, you hit the nail on the head Mark. The thing that always struck me odd about the station when I was there was that the only local issues they covered were on Forum or podcasts. But because at the time they were number 1, they had no reason to change what they were doing. Now KCBS is eating their lunch.

 

[davideduardo]

Right. I guess a viable 65+ demo doesn't really exist here.

It does not exist in any of the larger markets... let's say Top 75 to Top 100. In smaller markets where there is little agency business, local accounts will buy on a station with very old listeners. But they don't pay "prime demo" rates.

 

[davideduardo]

Part of the problem is that too many people in radio management have been trained to hate news and to disrepect news people. They have a bias against news and, if pushed into doing it, they do it badly. They refuse to figure out how to sell it. This has gone on for decades. It's a strong current that is nearly impossible to swim against.

I've never seen that hatred and lack of respect, despite working in 9 of the top 20 markets over the last several decades.

What I have seen is a resentment for the in-the-past FCC requirement to do news on music stations far in excess of what our own amply researched listeners wanted. But that is more anti-regulation and not related to the usefulness of news on stations where the format includes or is based on talk and information.

News is actually an easy sell, as it is something "important" many advertisers like to be attached to. What is hard to sell is news/talk because for decades... going back over 30 years... talk has been very polarized and many advertisers do not want to be associated with any of that.

I've been involved with several all-news stations, including one I designed the launch for. It worked in the 80's. But today, the all news audience is too old and hard to sell except in huge markets where those stations offer a valuable added reach for campaigns.

News/talk is different. In major markets, agencies won't touch it in the U.S. for the most part and there are not a lot of local direct accounts that can pay the needed rates, and that is why being a second tier talker seldom is very profitable unless part of a cluster package.

Outside the U.S., I've worked with talk stations in places like Buenos Aires, San Juan and Santo Domingo where the format can be polarized but not antagonistic and be immensely profitable and popular. It's the political environment in the U.S. that makes the format frightening to so many advertisers here.

 

[TheBigA]

And where it's been tried, it's either been against an established, formidable competitor or on a rimshot signal. Doomed to fail. It doesn't mean that the format itself is deficient or defective. In the case of KGO, it wasn't all-news: weekends were still talk shows and I believe overnights were syndicated talk.

In other words, if they lost MORE money, it MIGHT have done better. That's what you're saying. In the case of KGO, they put the best resources in the best dayparts, and it still wasn't enough. The real story was that the KGO audience was angry their favorite old talk show hosts had either been fired or died. Once those people were gone, they refused to listen, regardless of the format or the quality.

The point here is that when KCBS had competition, the audience gave excuses why they didn't listen, and the format went away. Now they want another idiot to come along and lose more money, and they still won't listen.

Part of the problem is that too many people in radio management have been trained to hate news and to disrepect news people. They have a bias against news and, if pushed into doing it, they do it badly. They refuse to figure out how to sell it. This has gone on for decades. It's a strong current that is nearly impossible to swim against.

And yet in San Francisco, Cumulus invested millions of dollars in news, hired experienced people, and the audience didn't care. You can blame unnamed radio management all day, but if they spend the money, and the audience isn't there, it's not management's fault, other than wasting money for five years on a format that was, as you said, "doomed to fail."

A lot of these same excuses can be given about why there isn't a country station in NY or SF. Management refused to sell it and didn't like the music. It really doesn't matter. The audience gave them a reason to drop the format by not listening. At the end of the day, it's really up to the audience. If they don't listen, everything else is just an excuse. In the case of finding competition for KCBS, it was tried, it failed, and it likely will never be tried again.

I've worked in all of the formats, from sports to music to news. You know how to get respect? Do good work that attracts audience and advertisers. That's my secret to success. It works.

If y'all think you're in a dying business, then why are you still in it?

I don't think I'm in a "dying business." But then again, I see it as a bigger thing than strictly broadcast radio. And I get a lot of "patronizing lectures" from people about that too.

 

[cc333]

@TheBigA You make some good points.

I myself am guilty of shunning KGO when they tried the more news-heavy format, so I understand. The audience simply didn't care, so they didn't listen.

c

 

[CassChopper96]

KLLC will lean more gold

 

[TomásEstefan]

And where it's been tried, it's either been against an established, formidable competitor or on a rimshot signal. Doomed to fail. It doesn't mean that the format itself is deficient or defective.

In the case of KGO, it wasn't all-news: weekends were still talk shows and I believe overnights were syndicated talk.




KROI was on a rimshot signal. The people were good (I had worked with many of them at KTRH) but the signal wasn't there and the commitment wasn't there from ownership. They were also up against KTRH and the image it had built from its years as all-news, despite iHeart's best efforts to pivot away from credible news coverage in Houston. (And KTRH had managed to build that image despite a substantial amount of internal tension and instability.)

Part of the problem is also that business time horizons are ever-shorter. Yet it takes years to build an all-news audience.

Part of the problem is that too many people in radio management have been trained to hate news and to disrepect news people. They have a bias against news and, if pushed into doing it, they do it badly. They refuse to figure out how to sell it. This has gone on for decades. It's a strong current that is nearly impossible to swim against.

NPR is no substitute. It does breaking news only on the national level, and usually only when it involves Washington or New York. Local member stations either don't have the resources to do breaking news, don't want to, or spend their resources on feature-length reports that can be hit or miss.

If I were still in the Bay Area, and felt an earthquake in the middle of the night (which has happened quite a few times) I wouldn't be tuning first to KQED. Not at all. KQED would be in NPR reruns typically. It would be KCBS.

I suppose I'll get a bunch of patronizing lectures after posting this one, but so be it. If y'all think you're in a dying business, then why are you still in it?

As I have said in another post on another thread, In the middle of the night if we feel a quake, we hit the KNX button, and they're usually already talking about it. The immediacy of local all-news radio is where a station like that shines.

 

[TheBigA]

As I have said in another post on another thread, In the middle of the night if we feel a quake, we hit the KNX button, and they're usually already talking about it. The immediacy of local all-news radio is where a station like that shines.

However, the reputation of KNX and KCBS was built when the station was owned by a multi-media conglomerate that also owned local TV stations in those markets. For the past few years. those stations have been owned by a radio-only company that is going through some financial challenges (not unlike what Cumulus went through a few years ago). The question is are these stations as dependable as they once were given the current financial situation at Audacy?

 

[cc333]

The question is are these stations as dependable as they once were given the current financial situation at Audacy?

If the slow but steady decline in their overall quality is any indication, I suspect not.

Somebody recently posted an aircheck of KCBS from some date in 1990, and while I've only listened to the first 5 or so minutes, it's quality so far is impeccable compared to modern KCBS.

The news presentation from the national news is far more informative and descriptive, yet concise and succinct. The imaging is far less busy and obtrusive also.

I'm sure people nowadays would think it's boring, but I like the overall stronger emphasis on the quality of information.

It's clear that Audacy (which, by the way, I think is a stupid name for a company) has done a lot of cost cutting at both KCBS and KNX now. Both still have some semblance of live and local, but there's more commercials and PSAs, and when there is actual news, it is much more repetitive, the production quality is inconsistent, and they seem to be using the same two or three reporters for almost everything, and I've heard the same stories by the same reporters on both stations, obviously prerecorded with slight variations overdubbed to feign "live and local."

It's a sign of the times, I guess, but that doesn't mean I like it.

c

 

[Loverofradio]

If the slow but steady decline in their overall quality is any indication, I suspect not.

Somebody recently posted an aircheck of KCBS from some date in 1990, and while I've only listened to the first 5 or so minutes, it's quality so far is impeccable compared to modern KCBS.

The news presentation from the national news is far more informative and descriptive, yet concise and succinct. The imaging is far less busy and obtrusive also.

I'm sure people nowadays would think it's boring, but I like the overall stronger emphasis on the quality of information.

It's clear that Audacy (which, by the way, I think is a stupid name for a company) has done a lot of cost cutting at both KCBS and KNX now. Both still have some semblance of live and local, but there's more commercials and PSAs, and when there is actual news, it is much more repetitive, the production quality is inconsistent, and they seem to be using the same two or three reporters for almost everything, and I've heard the same stories by the same reporters on both stations, obviously prerecorded with slight variations overdubbed to feign "live and local."

It's a sign of the times, I guess, but that doesn't mean I like it.

c

Watch your local tv station and see how many mistakes you will see. I’m in a Top 100 market. Years ago, the mistakes that are made now would never fly. But, we’re also hiring people out of college compared to years ago when more people actually wanted to work in media. Mark and The Big A mentioned respect and that’s something that was not done in years past when dealing with situations in newsrooms. We chased all of the good talent out of media because they were tired of being treated like dogsh*t, receiving horrible pay, and working terrible hours. News as a whole is going through an era where it needs to check itself.

 

[Mark Roberts]

I've never seen that hatred and lack of respect, despite working in 9 of the top 20 markets over the last several decades.

To be honest, if I had dealt with program directors who are as grounded in facts as you are, I might have stayed in broadcasting far longer than I did. But I didn't. It was rough being in radio news in the 1980s. I really didn't understand the lack of professionalism and respect until I bailed out, went into another field, and, even if there were disagreements sometimes, professionalism, respect, and decent treatment usually prevailed. (And if it didn't, there were consequences and there was accountability.) In a 35-year IT career, I only experienced one episode of what could be considered mistreatment, and that was at a company that later was convicted of felonies - though even there, I learned a lot about a new field of technology.

But some of it, too, is that it's less about engineering and more about perceptions and "soft" attributes that can generate a lot of disagreement.

News is actually an easy sell, as it is something "important" many advertisers like to be attached to.

Then why don't we hear more of it, on stations that aren't all-news or news/talk or talk?

What is hard to sell is news/talk because for decades... going back over 30 years... talk has been very polarized and many advertisers do not want to be associated with any of that.

That's a fair point - and much of what's "news/talk" really is just talk and increasingly seems to be rants and monologues.

I've been involved with several all-news stations, including one I designed the launch for. It worked in the 80's. But today, the all news audience is too old and hard to sell except in huge markets where those stations offer a valuable added reach for campaigns.

No, I don't think you could do a launch now unless everything lines up just right. The counter-examples that people have offered up (KROI, Merlin, etc.) started out with definite handicaps. That's my point. You can't just say "all-news doesn't work because KGO | KROI | Merlin | WJFK failed at it". You have to acknowledge the context. I think anyone making that kind of argument without acknowledging the context is betraying their own biases. There's more to the story than just "somebody failed".

Outside the U.S., I've worked with talk stations in places like Buenos Aires, San Juan and Santo Domingo where the format can be polarized but not antagonistic and be immensely profitable and popular. It's the political environment in the U.S. that makes the format frightening to so many advertisers here.

I'm a little surprised that you mention Buenos Aires, considering Argentina's history and economy. How have Argentines avoided the polarization that North Americans seem to be experiencing? I'm genuinely curious about this....

 

[Mark Roberts]

Mark and The Big A mentioned respect and that’s something that was not done in years past when dealing with situations in newsrooms. We chased all of the good talent out of media because they were tired of being treated like dogsh*t, receiving horrible pay, and working terrible hours. News as a whole is going through an era where it needs to check itself.

In the 1980s, a lot of good newspeople found themselves without jobs and without anywhere to go because the number of openings shrank considerably. I had always managed to land on my feet (three firings!) but after that third firing, I had enough. I could also see that it would be ever-harder to land on my feed. The ND who hired me at KTRH tried to encourage me to stay in the business and had some great feedback. But everything available was in a small market. I simply did not want to do that because I felt I could end up being trapped, and I had gotten burned in one small market already. I had excellent support from friends and family that got me through a difficult period when I had to re-orient my career path. Not everyone could do that. The one thing I truly learned was that working all sorts of hours and having my life governed continuously by events, while being, at best, moderately compensated and, at worst, being treated unprofessionally, was not sustainable. Never again would I love my work. I could like it, and enjoy it, and succeed at it, and be well-treated - as I usually was - but I always maintained a distance from it.

 

[Mark Roberts]

It's clear that Audacy (which, by the way, I think is a stupid name for a company) has done a lot of cost cutting at both KCBS and KNX now. Both still have some semblance of live and local, but there's more commercials and PSAs, and when there is actual news, it is much more repetitive, the production quality is inconsistent, and they seem to be using the same two or three reporters for almost everything, and I've heard the same stories by the same reporters on both stations, obviously prerecorded with slight variations overdubbed to feign "live and local."

It's a sign of the times, I guess, but that doesn't mean I like it.

Audacy's in a tough spot, as has often been noted here. I give them credit for at least continuing to do local news even with fewer resources. They haven't given up on it the way iHeart did in Houston.

 

[davideduardo]

Then why don't we hear more of it, on stations that aren't all-news or news/talk or talk?

Regarding news: most music stations see in their research that music listeners, outside of AM drive, do not want news and will change stations faster than when a commercial break comes on.

I'm a little surprised that you mention Buenos Aires, considering Argentina's history and economy. How have Argentines avoided the polarization that North Americans seem to be experiencing? I'm genuinely curious about this....

Like most of Latin America, there is a multi-party system where different parties may come and go depending on the issues. So people are used to three, four, five or more parties... and they know people they meet have a big chance of being of a different one than you.

Think of it like soccer teams: Buenos Aires alone has 5 "First Division" clubs: Juniors, Barracas, Boca, Horacán and River Plate. You know that at a gathering or party or office lunch area you will find fans of each, and you defend yours and listen out the others. Same with politics.

The AM we had when the stations (Radio 10 AM and Mega FM) were owned by Emmis was not "balanced" but took a specific position which was sort of a mix of the leading partys, where the hosts took positions that might be shared by several of the parties. Remember, Argentina had a first presidential election to pick the contenders in a second one if nobody had a 50% or better majority. So they, naturally, had two presidential elections.

 

[Loverofradio]

In the 1980s, a lot of good newspeople found themselves without jobs and without anywhere to go because the number of openings shrank considerably. I had always managed to land on my feet (three firings!) but after that third firing, I had enough. I could also see that it would be ever-harder to land on my feed. The ND who hired me at KTRH tried to encourage me to stay in the business and had some great feedback. But everything available was in a small market. I simply did not want to do that because I felt I could end up being trapped, and I had gotten burned in one small market already. I had excellent support from friends and family that got me through a difficult period when I had to re-orient my career path. Not everyone could do that. The one thing I truly learned was that working all sorts of hours and having my life governed continuously by events, while being, at best, moderately compensated and, at worst, being treated unprofessionally, was not sustainable. Never again would I love my work. I could like it, and enjoy it, and succeed at it, and be well-treated - as I usually was - but I always maintained a distance from it.

I get it. I spent nearly a decade in Monroe, Louisiana because I didn’t want to leave due the uncertainty of bigger markets

 

[TheBigA]

In the 1980s, a lot of good newspeople found themselves without jobs and without anywhere to go because the number of openings shrank considerably.

Because the FCC eliminated the news mandate around that time. Also the fact that the FCC passes the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule, prohibiting newspapers from owning broadcast. A lot of news stations were co-owned by newspapers.

Audacy's in a tough spot, as has often been noted here. I give them credit for at least continuing to do local news even with fewer resources. They haven't given up on it the way iHeart did in Houston.

You're thinking of Cumulus. iHeart still owns a news/talk AM in Houston. Audacy is in a tough place because it's a radio-only company. CBS was able to afford news radio because it was co-owned with TV and could share expenses.

 

[Mark Roberts]

In other words, if they lost MORE money, it MIGHT have done better. That's what you're saying.

Hell, no. My point is that "all news, some of the time" doesn't work. Even the mighty KCBS found that out in the 1980s.

Otherwise, please stop trying to put words in my mouth.

In the case of KGO, they put the best resources in the best dayparts, and it still wasn't enough. The real story was that the KGO audience was angry their favorite old talk show hosts had either been fired or died.

I question whether those were "the best resources". Otherwise, it was clear that KGO couldn't stay on the trajectory it was on. Yes, there were a lot of complaints, but I wouldn't confuse loudness of complaint with actual listener motivation.

A lot of these same excuses can be given about why there isn't a country station in NY or SF. Management refused to sell it and didn't like the music. It really doesn't matter. The audience gave them a reason to drop the format by not listening. At the end of the day, it's really up to the audience. If they don't listen, everything else is just an excuse. In the case of finding competition for KCBS, it was tried, it failed, and it likely will never be tried again.

I'm sure it won't be tried again. That's not the point being argued.

I don't think I'm in a "dying business." But then again, I see it as a bigger thing than strictly broadcast radio. And I get a lot of "patronizing lectures" from people about that too.

I would actually agree with your second sentence there - broadcast radio is just one piece of the puzzle and the puzzle itself is changing in ways that are hard to predict.

 

[davideduardo]

Hell, no. My point is that "all news, some of the time" doesn't work. Even the mighty KCBS found that out in the 1980s.

WBZ?

And quite a few news/talkers are all news in the AM, and talk or talk/sports every hour after that

 

[Mark Roberts]

You're thinking of Cumulus. iHeart still owns a news/talk AM in Houston.

Would you please stop with the mind-reading act already? KTRH was exactly what I was thinking of.

 

[Mark Roberts]

WBZ?

And quite a few news/talkers are all news in the AM, and talk or talk/sports every hour after that

"All news in the AM" just means having a block of news in the morning, in my opinion. To me, an all-news station is one you can tune to at any time to get news, and not have to wait half an hour, or an hour, or even more, to get it. It also focuses on original reporting, though not exclusively so. An all-news station also shouldn't be affected (dare I say poisoned) by their talk-show hosts' opinions, either.

Before Cumulus's failed attempt at all-news on KGO, yes, there were frequent newscasts on the station, but no one ever thought of it as all-news. From a different angle, no one ever thought of KQED or KALW as all-news, either. They had plenty of informational programming, mostly from NPR or APM, but you wouldn't go to them for up-to-the-minute local or even national coverage.

So perhaps what we have here is a problem with definitions. Which is OK, as long as it's recognized that KCBS isn't the same thing as KGO was, and not the same thing as KQED or KALW are.