Not at all. I've done gold based formats. My first job was playing 50s 60s oldies. I know every song by heart. That's why personally I want currents.
I would NEVER attack Buddy's programming. I never have and never will.
-
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
Buffalo BIG plans for WEBR
- Thread starter KilowattKat
- Start date
Not at all. I've done gold based formats. My first job was playing 50s 60s oldies. I know every song by heart. That's why personally I want currents.
I would NEVER attack Buddy's programming. I never have and never will.
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
With all due respect, A -- and you know that I do -- isn't confronting him on this issue of specials in the interest of "success" dangerously close to an attack on his programming?
I was just asking a question.
I've done gold in several different genres, including the ultimate gold: Classical music.
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
Then -- again, with all due respect -- you should have made it clearer that you were asking a general question, because in context, it sounded like an attack on WECK. At least, that's what it sounded like to me ... I don't know how others perceived it.
Make it clearer than ending my sentence with a question mark?? How would you suggest?
I have nothing but respect for Buddy, for you, and everyone else on this board.
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
It's not the question, it's what led up to it. Let me recreate the context, if I may ...
That really sounds like a challenge to me. @SirRoxalot makes a point about special weekends. You say "only if they are sponsored". @Buddy Shula disputes that and your next question sounds like a "shoot from the hip" ... an "oh yeah?" reply, and when Buddy answers you, your next remark -- when taken in context -- is akin to asking him if he breaks format outside of his specialty shows because those fall outside your definition of success.
Honestly, A, you're usually better than this. I can only surmise that you didn't see how the context was building up and changing what I think you were asking. And, just to prove I'm not trying to act like a moderator, here's how I personally would have asked your last question:
---
Okay, so the Beatles and Elvis shows are successful ... maybe because they generate revenue, maybe because they are good accents to the core programming, maybe because you get good listener feedback, all the things you mentioned previously.
But the question is whether or not you also believe that themed weekends can be successful. And if so, are they successful because of how they fit the regular format, or do they need to be sponsored (at least in part) before you decide to "break format" to do one?
---
Maybe Buddy will answer my version and clear it up for all of us.
That really sounds like a challenge to me. @SirRoxalot makes a point about special weekends. You say "only if they are sponsored". @Buddy Shula disputes that and your next question sounds like a "shoot from the hip" ... an "oh yeah?" reply, and when Buddy answers you, your next remark -- when taken in context -- is akin to asking him if he breaks format outside of his specialty shows because those fall outside your definition of success.
Honestly, A, you're usually better than this. I can only surmise that you didn't see how the context was building up and changing what I think you were asking. And, just to prove I'm not trying to act like a moderator, here's how I personally would have asked your last question:
---
Okay, so the Beatles and Elvis shows are successful ... maybe because they generate revenue, maybe because they are good accents to the core programming, maybe because you get good listener feedback, all the things you mentioned previously.
But the question is whether or not you also believe that themed weekends can be successful. And if so, are they successful because of how they fit the regular format, or do they need to be sponsored (at least in part) before you decide to "break format" to do one?
---
Maybe Buddy will answer my version and clear it up for all of us.
I didn't say "only." You added that.
I'm trying to understand what people mean when they say something "works." That's really at the core here.
Who does it "work" for? Listeners? Advertisers? Ownership? The DJs? Radio board readers? There are a lot of people involved.
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
It was my interpretation of what you meant. See? More ambiguity!
I agree, and that's what I'm getting at. Sometimes we all make shortcuts in our replies. Usually it doesn't matter, but here it added dirt to the water, if you get my drift.
And if that had been repeated as the thread's clarity got murkier ...
Maybe now we can dig into those points (if the ground hasn't already been thrown into the river).
... the overall P&L of the station, of course.
How you produce income is less relevant than how much total revenue you produce.
At a commercial radio station, the bottom line is the only key factor. Anything else can, and often should be, a benefit of profitability. A profit means that any or all the rest "works".
But the bottom line is profitability. Whatever you do should contribute to that, directly or indirectly.
But the items you mention are the ingredients to the meal that gets served. Any one thing that is done wrong can affect all the others, just like in a recipe.
Have you ever seen a broadcaster called "successful" if they did not make money?
I'm reading this argument between @TheBigA, @Buddy Shula, @K.M. Richards, and @davideduardo, and I am reminded of this morning's interview with Dr. Victor Pickard, a media studies analyst at Pennsylvania State University by WNYC's "On The Media" host Mica Lowenger.
www.wnycstudios.org
During the interview, Dr. Pickard notes that advertising did not become the primary focus for newspapers until the late 1800s (prior to then, the model was mostly a subscription one with roughly 40% of the money being made from advertising). When commercial radio was invented in the 1920s, it simply surplanted, to the best of its ability, the advertising model used by newspapers simply because there was no way to force people to pay subscriptions for the radio service and the U.S. chose not to follow in the footsteps of most other democracies and require a tax on radio and (later) TV set purchases to help pay for the programming.
And here is where we are today. The argument is being made that regular programming can be relaxed somewhat during weekends because fewer people listen then and because Nielsen really doesn't monitor (or at least it doesn't publish any results of monitoring) weekend listening. @TheBigA and @davideduardo are arguing that all programming, no matter what time slot it is in, should follow a rigid "make money for the station" model. In other threads, @TheBigA has gone so far as to argue that, because of people jumping to the Internet, radio should follow the model of the Internet stations and do a 24/7 rigid format.
Frankly, I find this argument to be ridiculous. Individual Internet radio stations do not and cannot serve a lot of people at one time for several reasons. There are no FCC licenses for Internet stations and no public service requirements to fulfill. However, if Internet radio stations play copyrighted music, then they must pay a per song per listener fee for each and every song to the recording industry, something that is not now required for over-the-air only broadcasters.
Look! Three weeks ago, KAZG in the Phoenix market abruptly dropped the hour of pre-Beatles music it was playing between 7 and 8am on Sunday mornings in favor of an hour-long infomercial to purchase stock advice for AI stocks. While I'm sure the station is being paid for the infomercial time, I can't help but think that that infomercial is drawing more listeners away from the station than the pre-Beatles rock did that it used to play during that hour. I also believe that there is absolutely nothing wrong for a radio station that is formatted with 1960s and 1970s rock to play for an hour at 7am on Sunday mornings music that is still rock but that attracts those people who are still alive who are a decade older. Hell, there was a period in the late 1970s when KOY, an AC/MOR station played Casey Kasem's "American Top 40," though a lot of the music on that show wasn't on the station's regular playlist. KOY was also the first Phoenix radio station to air the 1978 Bill Drake-narrated "The History of Rock and Roll,", though again, that show included songs and artists (Led Zeppelin, The Who, etc.) not normally played by the station during its format. If we can't allow music radio to occasionally break away from its format, regardless of short-term profitability because of what Internet radio is doing, then I say it is time to let broadcast radio die. If commercial broadcasters are no longer willing to throw even crumbs to minorities and outliers, then, as far as I am concerned, the service can, and should, drop dead, as it is no longer worth my ears.
The Ellisons Prepare to Expand Their Media Empire | On the Media | WNYC Studios
Netflix is backing out of a bid to acquire Warner Brothers Discovery, clearing the way for Paramount to take over. On this week’s On the Media, what happens to journalism and democrac...
During the interview, Dr. Pickard notes that advertising did not become the primary focus for newspapers until the late 1800s (prior to then, the model was mostly a subscription one with roughly 40% of the money being made from advertising). When commercial radio was invented in the 1920s, it simply surplanted, to the best of its ability, the advertising model used by newspapers simply because there was no way to force people to pay subscriptions for the radio service and the U.S. chose not to follow in the footsteps of most other democracies and require a tax on radio and (later) TV set purchases to help pay for the programming.
And here is where we are today. The argument is being made that regular programming can be relaxed somewhat during weekends because fewer people listen then and because Nielsen really doesn't monitor (or at least it doesn't publish any results of monitoring) weekend listening. @TheBigA and @davideduardo are arguing that all programming, no matter what time slot it is in, should follow a rigid "make money for the station" model. In other threads, @TheBigA has gone so far as to argue that, because of people jumping to the Internet, radio should follow the model of the Internet stations and do a 24/7 rigid format.
Frankly, I find this argument to be ridiculous. Individual Internet radio stations do not and cannot serve a lot of people at one time for several reasons. There are no FCC licenses for Internet stations and no public service requirements to fulfill. However, if Internet radio stations play copyrighted music, then they must pay a per song per listener fee for each and every song to the recording industry, something that is not now required for over-the-air only broadcasters.
Look! Three weeks ago, KAZG in the Phoenix market abruptly dropped the hour of pre-Beatles music it was playing between 7 and 8am on Sunday mornings in favor of an hour-long infomercial to purchase stock advice for AI stocks. While I'm sure the station is being paid for the infomercial time, I can't help but think that that infomercial is drawing more listeners away from the station than the pre-Beatles rock did that it used to play during that hour. I also believe that there is absolutely nothing wrong for a radio station that is formatted with 1960s and 1970s rock to play for an hour at 7am on Sunday mornings music that is still rock but that attracts those people who are still alive who are a decade older. Hell, there was a period in the late 1970s when KOY, an AC/MOR station played Casey Kasem's "American Top 40," though a lot of the music on that show wasn't on the station's regular playlist. KOY was also the first Phoenix radio station to air the 1978 Bill Drake-narrated "The History of Rock and Roll,", though again, that show included songs and artists (Led Zeppelin, The Who, etc.) not normally played by the station during its format. If we can't allow music radio to occasionally break away from its format, regardless of short-term profitability because of what Internet radio is doing, then I say it is time to let broadcast radio die. If commercial broadcasters are no longer willing to throw even crumbs to minorities and outliers, then, as far as I am concerned, the service can, and should, drop dead, as it is no longer worth my ears.
Commercial radio doesn’t care if you listen or not, because it isn’t programmed for people in their 60’s, 70’s or 80’s, nor outliers that are younger than that.
If the specialty music program is within format, what's the big deal? Audacy seems fine with it. Some examples:
KROQ - has a 4 hour Electronic music show on Saturday night.
KBZT (Alt 94.9) - has "The Legends Of Alternative" on Sunday morning. 91X even has a competing show during Sunday morning called "Resurrection Sunday".
KROQ - has a 4 hour Electronic music show on Saturday night.
KBZT (Alt 94.9) - has "The Legends Of Alternative" on Sunday morning. 91X even has a competing show during Sunday morning called "Resurrection Sunday".
I don't think that really is what I'm saying. Factually speaking, we're at a point where only certain hours of the day can generally "make money for the station." The question is what do you do in weaker times or on weekends where there typically isn't a lot of money to be made. You can do specialty shows, and there are a lot of cheap, nationally distributed specialty shows to carry. You can create local shows, but they take time and staffing to research and create. Not all stations have that kind of staffing available. So we have to be realistic in discussing (not arguing) options.
Once again, I disagree with your characterization of what I believe. The format concept has been popular in radio long before the internet, and there are many things internet radio can do that broadcast stations can't. My take is that stations follow the format on weekends because it's cheap and easy programming. Creating a specialty show requires time and money. If you carry a syndicated specialty show, you give up local avails. Some stations don't want to do that.
As I often say: Radio is not one thing. You have local owners like Buddy Shula who know what they're doing, and they run their stations based on their knowledge and experience. You also have corporate stations who have their own set of priorities. Some of them run specialty shows, some of them don't. Keep in mind that iHeart, Cumulus, and Audacy each own syndication companies and create specialty shows for their stations. The post above mine lists some specialty shows done by Audacy. So I don't think you can generalize about what radio is doing.
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
Ted, I have to add to what @radiofan2023 said.
You are clinging to the past. Not only does your narrative say so, your statement is ignorant of the changes in the business.
AND YOU SHOULD KNOW BETTER. You have been here on RD for over a year. You have participated in a lot of threads here during that time, and I thought you had a better understanding of where the industry is.
Radio is in survival mode. We have been for some time, ever since so many of our listeners decided that streaming, etc. is better for them. Short of something that makes it more expensive to operate "radio" via the Internet -- leveling the playing field again -- we have two choices: Do whatever we have to in order to maintain a viable business model, or turn in the licenses and go silent. I don't know about you, but I have seen enough of the latter to fight like hell for the first option.
And, forgive me for being blunt, I am not ever going to be in the mood to be lectured by people outside the business, and your post sounded like one to me.
If you decide to post anything with a similar "tone of voice", including that incredibly offensive wish for us to "drop dead" (even though you have every right to do so), I will put you on ignore. And I expect that I won't be the only one here that does likewise.
I said in my statement “ to make money”, but that is not the only factor to success in radio or in life.
WECK does many things for not-for-profits to raise money for special causes. We make no money on that. Would you say that is “not successful “?
It is very successful for other factors other than making money for the radio station. Does it indirectly help all parties? Of course.
Initially, I wasn't going to respond to the responses to my last comments on this thread but after some thought, I have changed my mind.
1) While anybody on this site has the right to ignore everything I post (and I've found the "Ignore" link on this site though I've never used it), I have no intention of ignoring anybody even if I disagree with them on some or a lot of issues. Frankly, years of experience, plus my educational background, have taught me that I don't know everything and that I should be open to learning even if I have disagreements with those who would teach me. I think the"Ignore" button on Facebook (which I haven't visited for decades) is probably one of the site's worst attributes.
2) There is a major difference between most of you and I regarding radio broadcasting. @K.M. Richards may be correct that I hold outdated viewpoints but I believe that radio has, or should have, obligations to the public beyond those of making money. As Mr. Pickard noted in his interview for "On The Media,", the availability of radio frequencies for general listening is much more limited than the availability of paper for printing news, and that limitation is about to greatly increase due (if current trends hold up) to the impending death of the AM band. At the same time, Internet radio listening is increasing and that has taken away at least some of the radio audience. And, of course, there is the issue of radio (as well as other "free" media) being owned by fewer corporations than in the past.
What I'm reading as the response to all of this from this, and other threads, is "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em." As I read that, I keep thinking of how that is one way to slide out of thinking in a democratic (small d) mindset to an authoritarian one...
Of course, that last sentence applies to news and news commentaries and not to music programming. With regard to music programming, because of the limited number of radio frequencies available (even if those frequencies are worth less than they used to be), we do need to rethink the idea that radio should serve only the wishes of the broadest possible audiences or their advertisers at all times. As an old fogie with outdated ideas, I surely think this is more likely to lead to the death of the medium in the long term.
In short, I think radio stations should serve the interests of the broader communities within their transmitter range than the narrow interests of advertisers and those who have a lot of cash to spend. And that is all I'll write on this subject on this thread.
1) While anybody on this site has the right to ignore everything I post (and I've found the "Ignore" link on this site though I've never used it), I have no intention of ignoring anybody even if I disagree with them on some or a lot of issues. Frankly, years of experience, plus my educational background, have taught me that I don't know everything and that I should be open to learning even if I have disagreements with those who would teach me. I think the"Ignore" button on Facebook (which I haven't visited for decades) is probably one of the site's worst attributes.
2) There is a major difference between most of you and I regarding radio broadcasting. @K.M. Richards may be correct that I hold outdated viewpoints but I believe that radio has, or should have, obligations to the public beyond those of making money. As Mr. Pickard noted in his interview for "On The Media,", the availability of radio frequencies for general listening is much more limited than the availability of paper for printing news, and that limitation is about to greatly increase due (if current trends hold up) to the impending death of the AM band. At the same time, Internet radio listening is increasing and that has taken away at least some of the radio audience. And, of course, there is the issue of radio (as well as other "free" media) being owned by fewer corporations than in the past.
What I'm reading as the response to all of this from this, and other threads, is "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em." As I read that, I keep thinking of how that is one way to slide out of thinking in a democratic (small d) mindset to an authoritarian one...
Of course, that last sentence applies to news and news commentaries and not to music programming. With regard to music programming, because of the limited number of radio frequencies available (even if those frequencies are worth less than they used to be), we do need to rethink the idea that radio should serve only the wishes of the broadest possible audiences or their advertisers at all times. As an old fogie with outdated ideas, I surely think this is more likely to lead to the death of the medium in the long term.
In short, I think radio stations should serve the interests of the broader communities within their transmitter range than the narrow interests of advertisers and those who have a lot of cash to spend. And that is all I'll write on this subject on this thread.
The broader community doesn't pay the bills. Advertisers do. We can't sell subscriptions like Pandora or SiriusXM. Advertisers and their money are the lifeblood of our business. I'm not playing music or talk programming to cater to just one person. I program to the widest audience possible because that's what the advertisers pay for. They want the widest audience possible for their message to attract customers to their doors. The advertisers are MY customers, not Marty living in his parents' basement writing manifestos and playing D&D all day.
That's the problem with so many people on this board. They've never worked a day in this business. They've never had to write a check to the FCC. They've never had to fill out ownership reports, or deal with ASCAP, SESAC or BMI. They've never dealt with having to broadcast through a hurricane or natural disaster while wondering if your own house will still be there when you get home.
You come at us as passionate listeners, but shout us down when we try to educate you on HOW the business works and WHY it works that way. You treat us like we're wrong in how we operate, but you'd never dare tell a police officer or a chef that they're wrong with how they conduct their business that they've spent an entire lifetime at.
You may think you know everything about this business, but trust me, YOU DON'T. None of us with decades in this business will ever know everything. What we DO know is how this business works for us.
If you want to message me privately, I'll give you the numbers of the brokers of the over 300 stations I personally know of for sale at this very moment. When you plunk down your hard-earned cash and put in 20 hour days 7 days a week to pay the bills, I'll listen to you.
From one Ted to another, you're wrong. We pay for our licenses, we buy the facilities, we pay the ongoing fees, and we have to live with the constant political changes that affect our livelihood on a daily basis. We do serve the broader community by doing blood drives, by airing PSAs, by providing weather and news, by broadcasting high school football and basketball. Most of this is now being taken over by Facebook and X and Instagram. They don't have to worry about vetting their sources. Anyone can post a completely false story on Facebook, and people will be sharing it and believing it simply because they read it. If we publish something so blatantly false, the FCC can have a field day with our license. Remind me the last time Mark Zuckerberg gave a rat's behind about the truth.
Buddy Shula is one of the most decorated people on this board. He's successful because he cares about the product and doing a good job, AND he's doing it on AM. Can you imagine what he could do with a 100kw FM? Hell, even Buddy has said AM is coming to an end. That's the reality. There are threads that are hundreds of pages long about saving it. Folks, there's no saving it. It's just postponing the inevitable. Guess what? FM is heading down that same dark path. We're keeping it on life support right now. And the advertisers are the lifeblood. Listeners are the brother who hasn't been home for years to see the dying patient and cries the loudest at the wake. They make a lot of noise but weren't there, never did the hard work, and put on a great show about how much they're grieving.
Sorry for the long rant, but until you've been where we've been and done what we've done, you can disagree, but DON'T tell us how to run OUR business.
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
Ted, maybe you should help Richard Wagoner write his column. He's stuck in the past, too.
For those thinking "Richard who?":
radiodiscussions.com
For those thinking "Richard who?":
Changes at KFI?
This was posted in Friday's LA Daily News in Richard Wagoner column. Word on the street is that KFI is planning to make some minor programming changes; I am betting that more will come, but they may arrive slowly. Will it stay local? Can talk survive in its current form? Can we bring back a...
radiodiscussions.com