A Gig In Today's Radio

[John FL]

I often wonder what a typical interview is like for those increasingly rare on-air opportunities. Going beyond a nice set of pipes and sense of humor, it would not surprise me if the focus is PROVING to the perspective employer how you can relate to the P1s and maybe even more importantly how they can relate to YOU.

Today, VT'ing is very common and it generally gets a bad rap. But many who do it don’t have the luxury of staying within a comfort level of one specific format. These folks have to stay up with all the news, concert schedules, new releases and who knows what else so as to make a favorable impression on listeners wherever they may live and across varied formats. IMHO, that takes some work and effort.

Radio is not the only business where a person’s age weighs heavily into the hiring process. But sometimes it’s not the obvious either. I’m aware of those who are actually significantly younger than the median age of the station, yet they have to somehow be able to relate those 15-20 years older. I wouldn’t think that’s easy. Consider also a man or woman who has to nail it if the target is the opposite sex from even a different generation. There are still a good number of long term radio folks who are successful today but they had to be receptive to new ways - not easy either.

There’s a tendency, perhaps it’s a normal reaction, to think talent and even consultants were far better in the past. For a long time, I thought that too. I’ve since changed my mind. I think it had more to do with radio and talent reflecting whatever the public’s taste is at the time. What was good then, truly was but like anything you really can't go back. Talent always had goals and had to deliver. But so much has changed from how audience is measured to increased competition on different platforms to listeners wanting to hear more music and less talk.

On these boards, it’s rare to find anyone say anything positive about today’s broadcasters. With so many restrictions and mere seconds for talent to execute anything, complement the format and be relevant, I don’t believe it is as easy as what it might appear to be. Automation is performing very well but I don’t believe it means talent extinction. Those who phone it in probably don't have a future as it should be. For a long time, I've been at odds with the radio status quo. It may seem I am surrendering. I'm not. I just believe there are a lot of hard working people out there who are compared to radio of the past and come up short. I take issue with that. I'm curious as to what your thoughts are. Let's see how this subject flies.

 

[bossbill]

There are many very talented broadcasters. A few of them still have jobs. Most that still have jobs have them because they're willing to work harder, take on more tasks, and in many cases VT for perhaps dozens of stations.

I have a hard time with the concept that you can relate to your audience with 3 talk breaks an hour.

I also take issue with the investment firms that are short-sighted enough to think that personalities are expendable. Small market radio has always been challenged with having enough revenues to pay a few good on-air personalities. Major market radio operators should be ashamed. You can't convince me that a radio station billing 5-10-15 million dollars a year can't afford it.

 

[Chuck]

I understand that Wednesday, Oct 26, is going to be a very bad day for on-air employees at Clear Channel. I hope I'm wrong....

 

[John FL]

I don’t like seeing good, hard-working folks lose their livelihood no matter the industry. Corporate greed is a popular subject on these boards and it certainly is making the headlines today. Perhaps we can tip-toe around the subject as we think how radio got from “there” to “here” as it relates to talent.

The first time I experienced talent in a more diminished role happened in the early 90’s when I lived in South Florida. A station came on the scene that featured mellow rock/pop hits from the 70s, 80s and today, again the today was the 90s. They promised never to talk over the music and talent was heard 4 times an hour mainly to repeat sweeper lines. The birth of boring radio?

The ratings took off like a rocket.

Looking back, I often wonder if the strategy that was used to launch that station and approach reflected what the public wanted, perhaps it was dumb luck or perhaps it was all the design to cut expenses. Maybe it was a little of everything.

From my own personal perspective, I liked what I heard and it seemed to lend itself well with the music. But I also enjoyed the oldies station too where at the time they talked over every other song and was chock full of personality. To this day, I don’t believe in one size fits all. Some formats lend themselves well to automation or semi-automation, some still need human interaction.

A major problem with radio IMO is when Company A builds a success model, then Company B, C etc. follow like sheep. In market after market, duplication of formats became common, especially if they could fly with no staff. Overall, radio did not put the listener in the center of the decision process but there are exceptions.

Clear Channel certainly gets a lot of knocks. However, where I live (Jacksonville Fl) I see the company in a much more favorable light. They seem to be marching to the beat of a different drummer locally but more on that later. I don’t want to write a novel here so when appropriate I’ll get back to the subject of talent. They can be an asset and not a liability and part of a winning strategy. More to come I'm sure.....

 

[TheBigA]

I learned very early that you can't argue with the ratings. And right now, in PPM markets, the ratings say people want music on music formatted stations. They're tired of interruptions and tired of long breaks. So three breaks an hour is the maximum. In fact in most PPM markets, I'm seeing two breaks. And the spot loads are decreasing. Some music stations have 9-10 minutes an hour. That means less money for staffing. And less air time for chat.

Getting back to John's topic, a gig in today's radio is more than on air. You need to prove you can relate on social media. And that's no easy task. Plus you need to be available to attend local functions and meet the audience. It's OFF the air where today's radio people do the connecting. And it's one-to-one. That takes time and skill.

 

[Questor]

Getting back to John's topic, a gig in today's radio is more than on air.  You need to prove you can relate on social media.  And that's no easy task.  Plus you need to be available to attend local functions and meet the audience.  It's OFF the air where today's radio people do the connecting.  And it's one-to-one.  That takes time and skill.

If only this were 100% true.

Some hosts, both local and national, are very averse to doing any in-person events.  Some have this attitude that any fan who expresses interest is an out-of-control lunatic.

And as far as interacting on social media, some may appear to be on Facebook or Twitter or the social network du jour (e.g., in the era of Myspace.)  Yet is it really them?

I've interacted with listeners in several occasions, and it's shocking to me how many have undergone the Wizard of Oz syndrome with an on-air personality.  They're very respectful and want to express a heartfelt and mature (not shrieking and overemotional) connection they have with a host or morning duo.  They're dismayed that the response back has been tepid.  Several have told me that after such a cold treatment, not only have they stopped listening to them, they've stopped listening to the station and boycotted advertisers too.

With the social media connection, for instance, one dedicated fan felt obligated to contribute and build up the interaction off-the-air that way.  He eventually got to meet the talk show hosts, and spoke to them about some supposed Wall interactions they had.  The talk show hosts had no idea what he was talking about.  Eventually, he found out someone else on the staff was delegated to pretend to be them.  He was deeply disillusioned too.

Local programming keeps getting devalued as 10/26/2011 changes demonstrate.  Moreover, some hosts state either privately or on the air (!) that they like being behind a microphone alone in a studio, yet have no desire to be in front of an audience.  The most they'll do is a 1-hour fundraiser where they appear, speak, and depart.

Someone advised me once the nice thing about having low expectations is you rarely experience disappointment.  Similarly, I've found if it's that intimacy you want with staff, listeners and management, consider smaller outfits and/or those with lower ratings.  They're far more receptive than the know-it-all's who proudly proclaim (albeit sometimes rightfully) that they got ahead without ever knowing of your existence.  It can be more fun (and human, if you like that word) to go after a bigtimer's demise simply by being nicer to someone else than their competitor was to you.

 

[TheBigA]

Some hosts, both local and national, are very averse to doing any in-person events. Some have this attitude that any fan who expresses interest is an out-of-control lunatic.

Yes I know. Those are the ones who are holding the industry back. They have no business in radio, and are taking up the space that could be occupied by someone younger and more dedicated.

 

[Paul_Warren]

I often wonder what a typical interview is like for those increasingly rare on-air opportunities...

Back up a step from the interview. Remember when a very few help wanted ads would be bluntly honest to stand out? Now, it seems many are actually trying to set expectations below reality, as if they're competing to see who can make the gig sound the worst and still have candidates apply.

"MIDDAYS, AC, TOP 50 MARKET - Are you endowed with that rare mix of great pipes, rabid enthusiasm and non-existent self-esteem? Come do middays on our music-intensive AC! You'll also voicetrack our country, polka and chill formats in 26 other markets, maintain the websites and tweet, with afternoon sales duties. Play-by-play experience and component-level soldering skills a plus. You won't make much money, but you'll save on an apartment, because you'll nod off in the production room seven nights a week!"

An exaggeration, but am I the only one who's seen more of these "undersell" wanted ads the last couple years?

 

[Chuck]

You've actually seen want ads???

 

[Nick Gerard]

I often wonder what a typical interview is like for those increasingly rare on-air opportunities...

Back up a step from the interview. Remember when a very few help wanted ads would be bluntly honest to stand out? Now, it seems many are actually trying to set expectations below reality, as if they're competing to see who can make the gig sound the worst and still have candidates apply.

It's nuts. I just saw an ad for Topeka looking for someone to do a "heavy production load", have creative copywriting skills, provide imaging for a country and a news/talk station, a weekend airshift, AND outside promotion "engaging listeners at remotes and street events." They can't be serious.

Nick Summers

 

[KFodor]

I'd just like to comment on a few of the things I've read in posts here.

On the topic of on-air staffers refusing to meet with the public: where I work, every single on-air staffer does remotes, public appearances, emcee's concerts, escorts winners backstage to artist meet and greets. When the full time staff can't do something due to scheduling conflicts, some of our part time staff is also given the opportunity to do some of these things.

Whenever our schedules permit, we do charitable events...and our news-talk station has always maintained a speaker's bureau for local staffers to go before school groups, business organizations, fraternal organizations, etc.

One of our local morning show hosts is so busy volunteering time and taking part in local fundraisers...sometimes it's hard to know exactly which organization is being assisted on any given day of the week.

Honestly, I think it comes down to the attitude of the station and the company that owns it, and the attitudes of the employees toward being out in the public. Some do this very well, others phone it in, some don't do it at all...

But, yes there are "out of control lunatics" that follow some radio stations. (Work for a news-talk station sometime...you'll find them quickly.) Some of those people have no lives, and seemingly can't go to the bathroom without permission from (fill in your favorite host's name). Some music stations have these as well. The thing to know is how to be polite in a public place and when to politely walk away from any situation that becomes uncomfortable. If that doesn't work, when to alert those in charge. Unfortunately, it happens on occasion. But, like the old saying goes, "that's show business"....

 

[TheBigA]

Honestly, I think it comes down to the attitude of the station and the company that owns it, and the attitudes of the employees toward being out in the public. Some do this very well, others phone it in, some don't do it at all...

I agree, and it really has little to do with the number of employees a station has, but the attitude of those employees. I often read people talk about the "public interest" line in the rules & regs, and that line is in all of the public/private partnerships including utility companies, like electric, water, and gas. That line doesn't specify what a station should do. But to simply remind the station that they need to interface with the public on a regular basis, and not stay behind locked doors.

 

[firepoint525]

It's nuts. I just saw an ad for Topeka looking for someone to do a "heavy production load", have creative copywriting skills, provide imaging for a country and a news/talk station, a weekend airshift, AND outside promotion "engaging listeners at remotes and street events." They can't be serious.

Contrary to what the corporate brass might think, NO ONE can do it all. How can you "engage your listeners" if you never get ANY time AWAY from the station? EVERYONE needs time to relax and get away from it all, every once in a while. You won't be able to "relate to your listeners" if you are having to spend LONG hours coccooned in the studio. I remember at the first station for which I worked full-time, it seemed like the only time I ever got to go outside and see daylight was for just a few short hours on Sunday afternoons, and it was especially bad during the winter months, and even worse during the holidays!

 

[TheBigA]

Contrary to what the corporate brass might think, NO ONE can do it all. How can you "engage your listeners" if you never get ANY time AWAY from the station?

A couple of points: Right now applicants for radio jobs far exceed the supply. So they will find someone who is willing and able to do it all. Colleges are teaching students how to do it all. And students are able to do it all on the internet.

Also, the concept of having the same job at the same radio station (or any place of employment) for a lifetime is over. Right now there are too many baby boomers in radio. A lot of on-air people are older than the target demo of their station. That's a problem, because they no longer are in the life group of their listeners. It's also preventing the next generation from getting into radio. Being an on-air person in radio is a ten-year or so gig. After that, it's time to move up the ladder, or do something else. Radio needs experienced on-air people to become entrepeneurs and start new support businesses for radio.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Corporations aren't keeping baby-boomers in radio because they're benevolent. Your college-trained "talent" who can "do it all" simply don't do it all well. In fact, they do most of it poorly. It's not because they aren't capable, or they don't have talent. It's simply that they haven't learned their craft, and there are precious few places left where they can really learn radio. And doing it on the Internet really isn't the same thing because the restrictions of the media are different.

I don't think that many people expected to get a gold watch when they went to work for a radio station. I do think that they expected to be rewarded for good performance. Right now, people with great numbers, great work ethic, and who put in the time doing all the extras, are being axed in favor of syndication.

CBS axed talent and brought on Jack. How'd that work out for them? Let's see what happens with Clear Channel and their cuts. I'm sure that Cumu-less is paying close attention.

 

[TheBigA]

CBS axed talent and brought on Jack. How'd that work out for them?

Depends on the market. Jack is still on the air and still delivering great numbers in LA.

The fact is that in survey after survey, the #2 thing listeners complain about, after commercials, is the talent. And they cite "annoying DJs" as the reason they went to Pandora or the internet.

What CC is looking for is the talent that doesn't annoy or alienate their listeners. Those who remain will be given a larger audience to entertain and some extra cash.

 

[firepoint525]

Contrary to what the corporate brass might think, NO ONE can do it all. How can you "engage your listeners" if you never get ANY time AWAY from the station?

A couple of points: Right now applicants for radio jobs far exceed the supply. So they will find someone who is willing and able to do it all. Colleges are teaching students how to do it all. And students are able to do it all on the internet.

I would say that the number of applicants AND the number of available jobs are shrinking. After all, the current generation is smaller than the baby boom generation, so as a percentage, it is probably about the same. In other words, it is probably about as hard to snag a radio job now as it was in the '80s or '90s. Fewer jobs, but also fewer people seeking them, too.

Also, the concept of having the same job at the same radio station (or any place of employment) for a lifetime is over. Right now there are too many baby boomers in radio. A lot of on-air people are older than the target demo of their station. That's a problem, because they no longer are in the life group of their listeners. It's also preventing the next generation from getting into radio. Being an on-air person in radio is a ten-year or so gig. After that, it's time to move up the ladder, or do something else. Radio needs experienced on-air people to become entrepeneurs and start new support businesses for radio.

I don't know that it's too many boomers still in radio, because most of us couldn't make ends meet on what station management was willing to pay us. So we moved on. Those who didn't move on voluntarily were nudged out and replaced by 19-year-olds who COULD work for next to nothing. I've been to broadcasting career fairs where the employers there literally DIDN'T have ANY jobs available, and didn't expect to have any for the next year and a half!

 

[SirRoxalot]

The fact is that in survey after survey, the #2 thing listeners complain about, after commercials, is the talent. And they cite "annoying DJs" as the reason they went to Pandora or the internet.

What CC is looking for is the talent that doesn't annoy or alienate their listeners. Those who remain will be given a larger audience to entertain and some extra cash.

The problem with those surveys is that half of what the listeners are complaining about isn't really talent, it's the repetitive liners and promo material that's usually written by management, and pre-packaged by voice talent. On a lot of stations, the voice guy gets more airtime than the talent. And listeners get tired of blatant station promotional material that's simply not entertaining or informative. Add repetitive music rotations, and you're practically driving people to seek out other sources of entertainment.

 

[TheBigA]

The problem with those surveys is that half of what the listeners are complaining about isn't really talent, it's the repetitive liners and promo material that's usually written by management, and pre-packaged by voice talent.

Not in the surveys I see. It's very specific about the long personal stories a morning team does about their vacation, or the way a certain DJ refers to women. Definitely not liners. In most PPM markets, we're seeing liners and promo material go away, so that will be less of a factor, and less of a reason to have an interruption. The repetition seems to be more of a problem among radio folks. The listeners don't care.

 

[SirRoxalot]

So, in other words, PPM is proving that the liners and promo content don't work, and add to clutter. If talent isn't relating to listeners, perhaps a PD with old fashioned skills like controlling and coaching talent might improve the product significantly without adding cost. Listeners care about content that's important to THEM. One of the biggest complaints from listeners is that they want to know song and artist information - stuff that many consultants deem a "crutch".

Maybe it's time to look at those people who successfully relate to audiences, and encourage them instead of firing them and replacing them with cookie-cutter syndication.