More Consolidation is Not the Answer to Poor Business Decisions

[Theater of My Mind]

And you did not address my main points about your exaggeration, use of hyperbole and general doomsday attitude towards radio.

You didn't address your points at me. It wasn't my post.

 

[davideduardo]

You didn't address your points at me. It wasn't my post.

Actually, it was your post. Your comments about the "10 minute stopset" and the demise of radio (the final paragraph) were vastly exaggerated beyond what could be called hyperbole and fall into the category of unsubstantiate and inaccurate opinions.

 

[gr8oldies]

Here we go again. Hatred for the "liner card readers." This is all ancient history. Liner card readers were popular in beautiful music formats in the 60s and 70s. These were basically automated stations with music provided by national syndicators with "local assist." There was a box of 5x7 cards on the console and the local host read the cards. That was the only format that used them. When beautiful music went away, it was replaced by various approaches to AC. The music changed but the approach remained the same. WNSR in NYC was one of these stations. Meanwhile, across town, you had Imus or other big name DJs doing their thing. Imus was not a liner card reader. There's no need for liner card readers today. It's all very 70s.


You can't generalize. There are 16,000 radio stations. You want entertaining DJ? They still exist. Right now, you can hear them, even in Phoenix where you live. They may not be there 24/7, but they're there. There are also stations that have absolutely no hosts at all. In Phoenix, there's KOAI, the Wow Factor. Name all the personalities. None. They don't even have liner card readers. Why bother, because the audience of over 65s don't care. It also doesn't affect the ratings. People listen for the music. At the same time, you have TALK stations. What a concept. Radio stations that play no music, and instead have local personalities who talk and entertain. No liner cards. If you want to hear talk, you listen to a talk station. You can also listen to a podcast. You can also listen to an audio book. Once again, you can't generalize.

Entertaining DJs still exist. They exist in many different ways. They might exist locally. They might exist through syndication. Steve Harvey is very entertaining because he's a comedian. He knows how to entertain. He's been doing it his whole life. Bobby Bones is also very entertaining. He's not just a DJ, but he's also in a band, and he does standup comedy. Bobby Bones doesn't read liner cards. I mention their names because they're national radio personalities and they're ONLY available on broadcast radio. They don't exist on Sporify, Apple Music, or Pandora. If you want to talk about a place where the DJ is irrelevant, it's in streaming. Yet millions of people use streaming radio. Nobody is insisting on Spotify hiring personalities. It's not that they can't. They make more money than the entire radio industry. When they hire a personality, it's Joe Rogan, who doesn't play any music. Is there something wrong with that?

People like what people like. It's not like how it used to be. Everything has changed. Get used to it. Going back to the way things were is not the solution.

I remember Spotify experimenting with a daily "morning show" with personalities voicing news and lifestyle features interspersed with songs from the users' playlists. It was obviously an overwhelming flop

 

[Theater of My Mind]

Actually, it was your post. Your comments about the "10 minute stopset" and the demise of radio (the final paragraph) were vastly exaggerated beyond what could be called hyperbole and fall into the category of unsubstantiate and inaccurate opinions.

I didn't write that . You were responding to post #194 which, again, was not my post. You can go back and look at the "10-minute stopset" comment that you quoted in your reply. Not me. I have not written a single thing about a "10 minute stopset".

I simply replied to your derision of the position of "Creative Services Director" as being a made-up title when, in fact, it is the top production job at major radio companies.

 

[davideduardo]

I simply replied to your derision of the position of "Creative Services Director" as being a made-up title when, in fact, it is the top production job at major radio companies.

From a couple of instance of the use of a similar title, that position involves sales to clients and agencies and can include web presence and related things. It has nothing to do with writing liners, promos, postioners, sweepers and the like.

It's a function of the sales department, not on-air programming as you indicated. This is what used to be called the "Production Manager" or "Production Director".

 

[Deus Ex Machiato]

I have wonder throughout your barrage of negative comments about how much actual radio experience you have.

Today, I got my answer. "Creative Services Director"? Huh? I have never heard of or seen such a position (although titles are easy to make, so there may be one somewhere sometime in history).

Ah...personal attacks. Not much I can do about it given you're running the board, so I guess I'll just have to take it. For your edification, my first "real" radio job (after college radio) was in 1987, and the last one ended in 2019. I had a pretty good run as an air talent in multiple shifts, morning host, producer, and 20 years as a Production Director (where I worked with sales, clients, and agencies to create spots and campaigns) and Creative Services Director where I wrote and produced station imaging. I'm proud of what I accomplished in my career but I try not to be condescending to others who didn't get as far as I did or portray myself as somehow superior. I'm just this guy who loved radio and spent a few decades doing it for a living.

As far as my "general doomsday attitude" towards radio, that comes from being away from it for (checks notes) 6 years now, and interacting with young people (Millennials and mostly Gen Z) who not only don't feel the excitement that Boomers and Gen X felt for radio back in the day, but have no use for it in general. As I've often said here, the response I've gotten when I mention my former career is something like "oh, cool...my mom/dad used to listen to the radio." (emphasis added) Where I work now, the question isn't "what radio station do you want to listen to?" It's about who's going to stream their favorite playlist on the speaker in our corner of the office.

Anecdotal evidence to be sure, but having had some distance from it, I understand why you're being defensive about the future of radio. I know I was...six years ago. Getting back to the OP topic, I don't see how the endless consolidation - doing more with less and less and less - is going to get "the kids today" excited about radio. I'm sure you've got plenty of research and data that says "not only do they love it, they're really excited about AM radio!" but I'm (obviously) skeptical.

 

[cc333]

I don't have much to add except for this:

Everything the big radio companies are doing is making me less interested in listening to their "product", not more.

As a layperson, I don't understand the radio industry too well, but it seems to me that whatever they're doing isn't working very well. And I doubt more consolidation will help to any meaningful extent.

On the other hand, maybe it will help. Like I said, I don't understand how the industry works.

c

 

[boombox4]

I don't have much to add except for this:

Everything the big radio companies are doing is making me less interested in listening to their "product", not more.

As a layperson, I don't understand the radio industry too well, but it seems to me that whatever they're doing isn't working very well. And I doubt more consolidation will help to any meaningful extent.

On the other hand, maybe it will help. Like I said, I don't understand how the industry works.

c

I think consolidation is the future, and -- ultimately -- it's probably the only way Radio can survive. Because when it goes all-online, it's going to be consolidated anyway -- just a handful of platforms with different channels, most of those channels being national and some of them being what's left of today's larger, local radio stations.

BigA once said that we're slowly headed back to where Radio was in the 1950's and before, when Radio was a handful of national networks, with a few standout exceptions (the larger, big city stations, along with a few stations in smaller cities -- and even some of those were affiliated with the big networks -- Columbia, Mutual, NBC, etc.).

Whether we like the effects of consolidation or not, it's the way it's headed -- regardless of whether it's done over-the-air, or online. It's the future, and probably that future is a decade or so away.

I agree with you that it won't draw more young people to the medium. I think the ship has sailed in that respect.

 

[davideduardo]

As a layperson, I don't understand the radio industry too well, but it seems to me that whatever they're doing isn't working very well. And I doubt more consolidation will help to any meaningful extent.

Actually, there is a proven way to improve radio’s financial situation. In much if not most of the free world where there is active commercial radio companies have formed national stations. These are not “networks“ but a whole bunch of transmitters all across a country running the same programming.

In some cases, such networks are broken into subsets due to geography or time zones, but the content other than localized information is uniform nationally from the perspective of advertising buyers. With this kind of “station“ advertising buyers make a single order that covers a whole country with consistent and uniform content

Radio is very hard to buy from the advertiser perspective because no company has an identical format in at least all the significant markets across the country. And even if they have a format under the same name in many markets, the content and performance are often highly variable.

If you look at countries ranging from Colombia and Peru to Spain, France, and Germany you will see many national stations that cover the entire country with one ad by and consistent performance market to market.

In the United States agencies have to buy either packages from the larger group broadcasters or individual stations one by one. In either case, do they get a comparable format with similar demographics across every US market. Even buying the top station in each format in every market does not get you exactly the same performance and demographics And is, of course, a mountain of paperwork to negotiate the buys send out the order and broadcast material, and process the invoices and make payments. For those ad agencies, it is easier to buy national Web streams and services then to buy radio.

If we look at the percentage of total ad budgets that go to radio in other countries versus what comes to radio in the United States, we can see a huge difference. In all countries, Internet, audio services have reduced the total listening time of broadcast radio, so that is not The cause for lower billing in the United States. In fact, broadcast radio, still reaches enormous percentages of the total adult population, and is an efficient way to reach mass markets. Since radio is priced based on listenership, even declining ratings, our compensated for by lower rates. Again, the problem is not the Internet and streaming, but the complexity Accompanied by enormous paperwork that is needed to buy radio nationally in the United States.

If a couple of the large groups were to trade off stations among themselves so that each of them had one or two totally national formats, I think we would see a rapid increase in the use of those national stations; this would result in an increase in total radio revenue nationally.

 

[b-turner]

Someone please explain how over the air radio is sending people online for basically being a computer in a closet , yet the online stations are computers in closets. Explain how a jukebox sends potential listeners away from radio to the same product (a jukebox) online.

 

[TheBigA]

I don't see how the endless consolidation - doing more with less and less and less - is going to get "the kids today" excited about radio.

I don't think that's the intent. It's not the 60s, and the kids aren't going to get excited about a 100 year old technology. I'll say it again: There's no format they can flip to, no staffing or local DJs they can hire, no programming change they can make that will get kids to throw away their phones and get as passionate about a transistor radio as their grandparents did. Nothing. You have to stop comparing today to then.

The reason the NAB wants to loosen these archaic ownership rules is to keep the current companies in business. That's it. There aren't any new owners coming into radio, and the old ones are shutting down stations rather than keep them on the air. This is about retaining broadcast radio and perhaps preventing every frequency in every town from becoming a religious radio station, because they're the only ones looking to buy. That's it.

 

[davideduardo]

Someone please explain how over the air radio is sending people online for basically being a computer in a closet , yet the online stations are computers in closets. Explain how a jukebox sends potential listeners away from radio to the same product (a jukebox) online.

On air radio: 12 to 14 minutes of ads in long stopsets.
Streaming audio: no ads or limited ads, depending on service.

 

[davideduardo]

I don't think that's the intent. It's not the 60s, and the kids aren't going to get excited about a 100 year old technology. I'll say it again: There's no format they can flip to, no staffing or local DJs they can hire, no programming change they can make that will get kids to throw away their phones and get as passionate about a transistor radio as their grandparents did. Nothing. You have to stop comparing today to then.

The reason the NAB wants to loosen these archaic ownership rules is to keep the current companies in business. That's it. There aren't any new owners coming into radio, and the old ones are shutting down stations rather than keep them on the air. This is about retaining broadcast radio and perhaps preventing every frequency in every town from becoming a religious radio station, because they're the only ones looking to buy. That's it.

As I mentioned before, the biggest issue of OTA radio is at the sales level. It is hard and complicated and tedious to buy. Oh, and inconsistent market to market.

There is less and less local direct money because of big-box stores and internet sales thinning the herd significantly. And national agency accounts find radio very hard and complicated to buy.

It's interesting that in nations where there are many "national stations" radio has nearly twice the percentage of ad revenue as in the U.S.

And what, in the U.S. is called "network" is never a compete national coverage with 24/7 consistent demographic targeting across the country. At best, "network" sell a few decent stations along with a plethora of rimshots, far suburban and otherwise useless stations which don't deliver the entire nation uniformly.

 

[TheBigA]

As I mentioned before, the biggest issue of OTA radio is at the sales level. It is hard and complicated and tedious to buy. Oh, and inconsistent market to market.

The current chairman of the FCC doesn't care about radio sales. He also doesn't want national radio. So the fear some have of one company owning all 16,000 radio stations won't happen. He wants deregulation that helps small owners and helps the FCC.

Right now they're in the comments phase. I expect most of the comments they receive will be against more ownership deregulation. I also expect them to draw on those comments to promote their agenda.

 

[bobdavcav]

Actually, there is a proven way to improve radio’s financial situation. In much if not most of the free world where there is active commercial radio companies have formed national stations. These are not “networks“ but a whole bunch of transmitters all across a country running the same programming.

In some cases, such networks are broken into subsets due to geography or time zones, but the content other than localized information is uniform nationally from the perspective of advertising buyers. With this kind of “station“ advertising buyers make a single order that covers a whole country with consistent and uniform content

Radio is very hard to buy from the advertiser perspective because no company has an identical format in at least all the significant markets across the country. And even if they have a format under the same name in many markets, the content and performance are often highly variable.

If you look at countries ranging from Colombia and Peru to Spain, France, and Germany you will see many national stations that cover the entire country with one ad by and consistent performance market to market.

In the United States agencies have to buy either packages from the larger group broadcasters or individual stations one by one. In either case, do they get a comparable format with similar demographics across every US market. Even buying the top station in each format in every market does not get you exactly the same performance and demographics And is, of course, a mountain of paperwork to negotiate the buys send out the order and broadcast material, and process the invoices and make payments. For those ad agencies, it is easier to buy national Web streams and services then to buy radio.

If we look at the percentage of total ad budgets that go to radio in other countries versus what comes to radio in the United States, we can see a huge difference. In all countries, Internet, audio services have reduced the total listening time of broadcast radio, so that is not The cause for lower billing in the United States. In fact, broadcast radio, still reaches enormous percentages of the total adult population, and is an efficient way to reach mass markets. Since radio is priced based on listenership, even declining ratings, our compensated for by lower rates. Again, the problem is not the Internet and streaming, but the complexity Accompanied by enormous paperwork that is needed to buy radio nationally in the United States.

If a couple of the large groups were to trade off stations among themselves so that each of them had one or two totally national formats, I think we would see a rapid increase in the use of those national stations; this would result in an increase in total radio revenue nationally.

I think I asked this earlier in this thread but never got an answer, so I'll ask again. If this works so well, then why haven't the big companies embraced it at least to the extent they can? Why are Y94 Syracuse, B98 Wichita, or Kiss 98.1 Spokane still using their respective local brandings? All three, and probably dozens of other stations in iHeart's portfolio, are running the company's national format with little to no local content. It seems to me like simply branding all three with a common brand, that being whatever iHeart decides, and making them fully national would make more sense. Right now, said network wouldn't have national coverage because iHeart still has stations that are locally programmed, but you're making an argument that what I'm proposing would at least be better than what they're doing now, and any iHeart station in the future that cuts all local programming would simply join the network.

 

[TheBigA]

Why are Y94 Syracuse, B98 Wichita, or Kiss 98.1 Spokane still using their respective local brandings?

Because they're sold locally, Nielsen measures them locally, and the FCC licenses them as local stations.

 

[gr8oldies]

I think I asked this earlier in this thread but never got an answer, so I'll ask again. If this works so well, then why haven't the big companies embraced it at least to the extent they can? Why are Y94 Syracuse, B98 Wichita, or Kiss 98.1 Spokane still using their respective local brandings? All three, and probably dozens of other stations in iHeart's portfolio, are running the company's national format with little to no local content. It seems to me like simply branding all three with a common brand, that being whatever iHeart decides, and making them fully national would make more sense. Right now, said network wouldn't have national coverage because iHeart still has stations that are locally programmed, but you're making an argument that what I'm proposing would at least be better than what they're doing now, and any iHeart station in the future that cuts all local programming would simply join the network.

Even when Cumulus was being gung-ho on NASH, there were exceptions.

 

[davideduardo]

The current chairman of the FCC doesn't care about radio sales. He also doesn't want national radio. So the fear some have of one company owning all 16,000 radio stations won't happen. He wants deregulation that helps small owners and helps the FCC.

Further deregulation will not help small broadcasters. He is wrong.

Local direct revenue is shrinking due to the big box stores and chains that generally do not buy radio and the move of a huge percentage of retail dollars to online sellers. There is nothing the FCC can do about that..

Right now they're in the comments phase. I expect most of the comments they receive will be against more ownership deregulation. I also expect them to draw on those comments to promote their agenda.

And, without a change in the whole model radio uses, buyers will simply stop using the medium as listening continues to decline.

 

[davideduardo]

I think I asked this earlier in this thread but never got an answer, so I'll ask again. If this works so well, then why haven't the big companies embraced it at least to the extent they can? Why are Y94 Syracuse, B98 Wichita, or Kiss 98.1 Spokane still using their respective local brandings? All three, and probably dozens of other stations in iHeart's portfolio, are running the company's national format with little to no local content. It seems to me like simply branding all three with a common brand, that being whatever iHeart decides, and making them fully national would make more sense. Right now, said network wouldn't have national coverage because iHeart still has stations that are locally programmed, but you're making an argument that what I'm proposing would at least be better than what they're doing now, and any iHeart station in the future that cuts all local programming would simply join the network.

The problem is that no company has, for example, a country station in every one of the top 150 to 200 markets. Some have a big handful, but none even approaches being a "national" service.

Even if all the iHeart CHR stations (or any other broad format) ran the same format, it would not reach anywhere near total national penetration. If we think "network" we have to use the model of CBS, ABC and NBC television where every rated market area has an affiliate and the majority of network shows are carried on every one of them. Ad agencies like that, as it is one buy that has a measured national reach. Make a few of those buys, and you have a full campaign. You can't do that easily with radio.

 

[TheBigA]

The problem is that no company has, for example, a country station in every one of the top 150 to 200 markets. Some have a big handful, but none even approaches being a "national" service.

You don't have to own stations in every market to be able to sell in every market. The network TV model shows that.

What people don't see are the sales networks that exist that are based strictly on demos, not formats.