-
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
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
This thread is like many others I've read in the past few years. They all end up looking for where it all went wrong.
Personally, I have to pin that award on The Research Group and its clients, circa 1978. They sold the radio industry on the notion that if you did the right perceptual and music research, rounded off all the rough edges, avoided all the big mistakes, and didn't offend anyone, you'd be guaranteed top-5 25-54, and you could take that to the bank.
The problem is, avoiding all the big mistakes is only half of what's required. The other half is letting creative people have the freedom and support to take informed chances, and entertain listeners. And, admit it...some of the most entertaining things you've ever heard on radio would have looked like big mistakes ahead of time!
If you, as a radio manager, are not willing to take that leap, then you have chosen guaranteed, profitable mediocrity over sometimes erratic greatness.
Radio companies usually elevate sales performers to top management and executive positions. Everything in their background prepares them to count on numbers, and embrace the proposition of the guaranteed 4-share sold by consultants and researchers.
Doctors take the Hypocratic Oath, which says, in part, "first, do no harm." What if your doctor did only that, and did nothing to actually treat your illness?
The term "branding" became a big buzzword a decade or so ago. Branding is simply the linking of a product name with a set of attributes in the mind of the prospect. In radio, the researchers and consultants convinced a generation of radio managers that the way to "build a brand" was to focus the music library and read the right liners. I'm sorry, but "Lite" or "Mix" or "Today's Fresh Country" are weak brands compared to one developed by a team of air personalities involved in their community, and responding to local needs in real time.
The very premise on which radio programming is based today was developed by people who make their livings cloning their past successes, and selling them to people who put their trust in numbers.
I don't want to sound like I'm down on researchers and consultants. They provide useful services, and can make even the best stations perform better. Where it went off the rails was when radio management was denied the freedom (usually by corporate, but sometimes by their own instincts to cover their butts,) to use research and ideas from other markets as just one input to the creative process, balanced by local market knowledge, an assessment of the unique competitive opportunities represented by the talents of the airstaff, and common sense.
Nobody dares try for a 15-share anymore. It's too risky.
I spent 30+ years in radio, and built a track record most people would envy as an Adult Contemporary air talent and programmer in markets 15 - 60. I got very caught up in sweating the small stuff, as we all do. I've now been out of the business for about 4 years, and I'm stunned at just how irrelevant most radio positioners are in convincing me to listen to a particular station. Most "positioning" sounds like noise to me, especially given how much of it is produced. Why do so many promos seem to mimic obnoxious car dealer ads?
Some of my observations stem from demographics. I'm less than a year from falling over that 55+ cliff where radio dares not tread. But it's more than that. The great Top-40 stations always reached broad demographics. They did it with varied music styles, great news departments, and personalities who provided companionship.
Radio has let "good company" become the exclusive domain of text messaging and social networking websites. I don't believe there's any getting it back. Taking listener calls and shaping my presentation in real time was the part of the business I loved best. I'm a professional podcaster now, and I have more contact with my listeners than most people hosting shifts in music radio today.
My grandfather was a railroad telegrapher until he retired in the 1950s. Obviously, he hung on long enough to watch the career he had trained for completely disappear. I feel we have something in common.
Personally, I have to pin that award on The Research Group and its clients, circa 1978. They sold the radio industry on the notion that if you did the right perceptual and music research, rounded off all the rough edges, avoided all the big mistakes, and didn't offend anyone, you'd be guaranteed top-5 25-54, and you could take that to the bank.
The problem is, avoiding all the big mistakes is only half of what's required. The other half is letting creative people have the freedom and support to take informed chances, and entertain listeners. And, admit it...some of the most entertaining things you've ever heard on radio would have looked like big mistakes ahead of time!
If you, as a radio manager, are not willing to take that leap, then you have chosen guaranteed, profitable mediocrity over sometimes erratic greatness.
Radio companies usually elevate sales performers to top management and executive positions. Everything in their background prepares them to count on numbers, and embrace the proposition of the guaranteed 4-share sold by consultants and researchers.
Doctors take the Hypocratic Oath, which says, in part, "first, do no harm." What if your doctor did only that, and did nothing to actually treat your illness?
The term "branding" became a big buzzword a decade or so ago. Branding is simply the linking of a product name with a set of attributes in the mind of the prospect. In radio, the researchers and consultants convinced a generation of radio managers that the way to "build a brand" was to focus the music library and read the right liners. I'm sorry, but "Lite" or "Mix" or "Today's Fresh Country" are weak brands compared to one developed by a team of air personalities involved in their community, and responding to local needs in real time.
The very premise on which radio programming is based today was developed by people who make their livings cloning their past successes, and selling them to people who put their trust in numbers.
I don't want to sound like I'm down on researchers and consultants. They provide useful services, and can make even the best stations perform better. Where it went off the rails was when radio management was denied the freedom (usually by corporate, but sometimes by their own instincts to cover their butts,) to use research and ideas from other markets as just one input to the creative process, balanced by local market knowledge, an assessment of the unique competitive opportunities represented by the talents of the airstaff, and common sense.
Nobody dares try for a 15-share anymore. It's too risky.
I spent 30+ years in radio, and built a track record most people would envy as an Adult Contemporary air talent and programmer in markets 15 - 60. I got very caught up in sweating the small stuff, as we all do. I've now been out of the business for about 4 years, and I'm stunned at just how irrelevant most radio positioners are in convincing me to listen to a particular station. Most "positioning" sounds like noise to me, especially given how much of it is produced. Why do so many promos seem to mimic obnoxious car dealer ads?
Some of my observations stem from demographics. I'm less than a year from falling over that 55+ cliff where radio dares not tread. But it's more than that. The great Top-40 stations always reached broad demographics. They did it with varied music styles, great news departments, and personalities who provided companionship.
Radio has let "good company" become the exclusive domain of text messaging and social networking websites. I don't believe there's any getting it back. Taking listener calls and shaping my presentation in real time was the part of the business I loved best. I'm a professional podcaster now, and I have more contact with my listeners than most people hosting shifts in music radio today.
My grandfather was a railroad telegrapher until he retired in the 1950s. Obviously, he hung on long enough to watch the career he had trained for completely disappear. I feel we have something in common.
If you don't sign the contract then you don't have a job! True they can't make you sign.. very true.. but you still don't have a job.. no matter what. Best to have a lawyer look it over first and find loop holes. For a job that pays minimum wage is it even worth it.
The last post is off topic but right on.
The last post is off topic but right on.
Indy, I apologize for rambling, but in any discussion of respect for air talent, the industry's move to formats in which personalities are less important is relevant.
Non-competes were based on the premise that the station was making an investment in promoting someone chosen for a unique and valuable talent. Stations took risks and spent money to promote personalities, and sought to protect that investment.
Today, most music formats are defined by a particular music library and format position slogan, and who's on the air is mostly inconsequential, especially outside morning drive. Non-competes serve a different purpose now, simply a tool to reduce the inconvenience and costs of replacing interchangeable parts, and to suppress competition in salaries.
The only way to make a good business decision when considering an offer that includes a non-compete is to be ready to walk away if the terms are wrong. That's very hard to do if you're excited about the job. And doggone it, we should all be looking for jobs we're excited about!
I've been in this circumstance twice, and both times found a point on which I could negotiate waiving the non-compete in exchange for something the station wanted from me. I sense this doesn't happen often.
Non-competes were based on the premise that the station was making an investment in promoting someone chosen for a unique and valuable talent. Stations took risks and spent money to promote personalities, and sought to protect that investment.
Today, most music formats are defined by a particular music library and format position slogan, and who's on the air is mostly inconsequential, especially outside morning drive. Non-competes serve a different purpose now, simply a tool to reduce the inconvenience and costs of replacing interchangeable parts, and to suppress competition in salaries.
The only way to make a good business decision when considering an offer that includes a non-compete is to be ready to walk away if the terms are wrong. That's very hard to do if you're excited about the job. And doggone it, we should all be looking for jobs we're excited about!
I've been in this circumstance twice, and both times found a point on which I could negotiate waiving the non-compete in exchange for something the station wanted from me. I sense this doesn't happen often.
Paul_Warren said:The only way to make a good business decision when considering an offer that includes a non-compete is to be ready to walk away if the terms are wrong. That's very hard to do if you're excited about the job. And doggone it, we should all be looking for jobs we're excited about!
I've been in this circumstance twice, and both times found a point on which I could negotiate waiving the non-compete in exchange for something the station wanted from me. I sense this doesn't happen often.
Just like a lot of things, they can be negotiated. At a certain point, if confronted with a non-compete, one has to ask themselves if it's worth it. If they've been in the market forever, it's more important. In most markets, it isn't. But, it IS a choice and sometimes that choice includes whether to accept a position.
PS: most of the major groups now have non-competes written into all of their agreements.
You are spot-on. Non-competes are standard contract language anymore.
If you have to take one, try and negotiate payment to sit it out if the termination is their idea. In many cases, they'll choose to release you rather than pay you to sit, even if it's less than your salary was, because they'll be paying your replacement at the same time.
If you have to take one, try and negotiate payment to sit it out if the termination is their idea. In many cases, they'll choose to release you rather than pay you to sit, even if it's less than your salary was, because they'll be paying your replacement at the same time.
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.